Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CLYDE LIGHTHOUSES CONSOLIDATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Clyde Lighthouses," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. Mender: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of the League of Nations consequent on the resignation of the Secretary-General; in whom the direction exists at the present moment; whether it is intended that any sections of the League of Nations should be transferred from Switzerland to other countries; and, if so, to which, and under what conditions?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The resignation of M. Avenol has not yet become effective; the second part of the Question does not therefore arise. Proposals are being worked out for the transfer of personnel of certain sections of the Secretariat from Geneva, to facilitate the continuance of the social and economic work of the League. Personnel of the International Labour Office have already been transferred to Canada. It will be possible to make a fuller statement at a later date.

Mr. Mander: Is the International Labour Office the only section that has so far been transferred?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is the International Labour Office carrying on its work in London or in Geneva?

Mr. Butler: It will carry on its work, but not in London.

Miss Rathbone: Could not the work of the League of Nations be carried on informally in this country, where representatives of most of the interested countries are now concentrated?

Mr. Butler: I see the force of the hon. Lady's question, but alternative arrangements are in mind. If she will await the fuller statement which I propose to make when the arrangements are further forward, she will see that the arrangements will be effective.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALTIC STATES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the status of the three Baltic States and their representatives in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN, CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make respecting the operation of the Police Agreement arrived at on 19th June, 1940, relating to Tientsin?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Consul-General at Tientsin reports that the Police Agreement is working smoothly.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what results have accrued from representations made to the Japanese Government about the failure of local authorities to suppress anti-British manifestations in the Japanese occupied areas of China?

Mr. Butler: Anti-British manifestations at the present time are confined almost entirely to Press attacks.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make respecting the operation of the agreement of 19th June, 1940, respecting silver and currency at Tientsin?

Mr. Butler: The provisions of the agreement respecting silver and currency are being duly observed. As regards the silver, arrangements have been made for the sale of an amount approximately equivalent to £100,000, and the proceeds are to be expended for famine relief in North China. The rest of the silver remains under seal in the vaults of the Chinese bank where it has hitherto been stored.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any satisfactory reply has been received to our representations to the Japanese Government respecting restrictions imposed on the trade of third Powers in North and Central China?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is asking for a report on the result of the recent representations which His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo was authorised to make to the Japanese Government on this subject.

Captain Graham: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information respecting the application of a revised Customs tariff for the Japanese-occupied parts of China?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has no information of any recent revision of the Customs tariff for the Japanese occupied parts of China.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the acute need in China for further Red Cross supplies and for surgical implements and drugs for the civilian population; and whether arrangements can now be made for the supply of these to China by way of Burma?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has approached the Japanese Government about the importation into China of petrol for the internal distribution of Red Cross material, and is endeavouring to obtain an early reply.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the urgent need of the Chinese for all that they can store, will the Government consider making a grant from our stores to help the Chinese?

Mr. Butler: Medical stores can pass into China; the difficulty is to obtain petrol to distribute the stores in China.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any discussions have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Polish Government concerning the formulation of a common foreign policy; and, if so, whether complete agreement has been reached?

Mr. Hicks: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in his negotiations with the Polish Government representatives, he was informed that Poland considers herself at war with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and whether he is in a position to make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Butler: There is the closest collaboration between His Majesty's Government and the Polish Government on all matters concerning the conduct of the war, including questions of foreign policy. Since September of last year the Polish Government have left His Majesty's Government in no doubt that they could only regard the violation by the Soviet Union of the Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact as placing them in a state of war with the Soviet Union. For the rest, as I told the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) on 15th August, my Noble Friend is not prepared to take upon himself the duty of giving information on the relations between an independent Government and other foreign Governments.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the only centre from which the so-called Polish Government can carry on war against the Soviet Union is this country, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that is helping what he claims to be the desire of His Majesty's Government for better relations with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member had better leave the relations with the Soviet Union and this country to His Majesty's


Government. He knows quite well that it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to improve relations with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the close relationship between the Polish Government and His Majesty's Government, will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Polish Government to the undesirability of the magazine published by representatives of the Polish Council?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS, UNITED STATES.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British Embassy at Washington have notified all British subjects in the United States of America, over 31 years of age, to remain in America for the time being; and what is the reason for such advice being tendered to those subjects who are eligible and liable for military service?

Mr. Butler: No such notification has been made by the British Embassy at Washington. His Majesty's Ambassador, in common with other of His Majesty's representatives abroad, has been instructed that passages to this country should be provided for volunteers with certain specified qualifications or experience. Those concerned must be between the ages of 18 and 55. In present military circumstances, free passages will not be provided for unskilled volunteers of military age, but these categories will be encouraged to return. His Majesty's representatives have, however, been instructed to bear in mind that in view of the desirability of maintaining British commercial and financial concerns abroad at their utmost efficiency, British subjects occupying key positions in such concerns should not be encouraged to leave. It should be remembered that British subjects domiciled abroad, although eligible, are not liable for military service under the Military Service Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL INSTITUTE OF INTER NATIONAL AFFAIRS (BALLIOL COLLEGE BRANCH).

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

whether the review of the grant-in-aid to the branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Balliol College has been completed; and, if so, what reduction in the grant is anticipated as a result thereof?

Mr. Butler: So far as can at present be anticipated, a reduction in the Budget of the Foreign Research and Press Service amounting to not less than £8,000 will be effected by the Council of Chatham House, as a result of economies.

Sir S. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend mean that the grant-in-aid figure is £57,000?

Mr. Butler: Not if there is a reduction.

Sir S. Reed: Was not the original grant £65,000?

Mr. Butler: I must look into these figures, but the fact remains as stated by me. It is expected that there will be a reduction of the figures I have mentioned. The Foreign Research and Press Service and the political and economic intelligence and research work being done for His Majesty's Government are at present under consideration.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the first consideration must be the efficiency of the service rendered to the Government?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL COMPANY(SALES, JAPAN).

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the closing of the Burma Road for the supply of war materials to China, it is proposed to cancel the sale of 1,000,000 barrels of oil to Japan made in April, 1940, by the British Government-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company with the express approval of the British Government?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing further to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of Petroleum on this subject on 23rd April.

Mr. Mander: Could anything be more grossly unfair than to supply Japan with oil to attack China at the same time as China is refused permission to receive supplies along the Burma Road?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government on the date mentioned said that it was not their policy to interfere with the commercial activities of this country.

Mr. Stokes: To what extent are His Majesty's Government being influenced by vested interests in oil?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not most desirable that the Government should avoid the charge of having, in effect, put an oil sanction upon a victim of aggression while continuing to supply the aggressor with most of his requirements?

Mr. Butler: I agree that there is force in the hon. Member's point, but the Government have always endeavoured to keep themselves free from such charges. I have referred to the original answer given by the Minister for Petroleum. The hon. Member will see from that answer that there is no other limit to this transaction.

Mr. McGovern: Is this policy supported by the Labour members of the Government?

Mr. Butler: All Government decisions are unanimous.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to have this matter reconsidered, in view of the fact that it is not possible to lay down a principle like that enunciated in the reply referred to in April, and that the Government must consider the political and other bearings of commercial transactions in petroleum?

Mr. Butler: I am certainly willing to communicate the views expressed by the hon. Member to my hon. Friend the Minister for Petroleum.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES, EGYPT (PARCELS DUTY).

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been able to again raise with the Egyptian Government the possibility of lowering the duty imposed on parcels sent to men serving in His Majesty's Forces in Egypt, in view of the fact that the duty at present payable frequently exceeds the value of the parcel sent?

Mr. Butler: Practically all parcels sent to men serving in His Majesty's Forces in Egypt are exempt from duty, except

those containing tobacco. The truth is that it is much cheaper for men to supplement the existing generous free issue of tobacco by buying it in Egypt from Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes rather than having it sent from home. These local purchases can be effected at favourable prices, thanks to considerable reductions of duty allowed by the Egyptian Government. My Noble Friend would only be prepared to make a further approach to the Egyptian Government if the hon. Member can throw any fresh light on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic relations or contacts exist between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Vichy?

Mr. Butler: Since the departure of the French Chargé d' Affaires and the staff of the French Embassy, on 18th July, some formal communications have been exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the Vichy Government. These have been conducted through the intermediary of the United States Government, which has assumed charge of British interests in unoccupied as well as in occupied France. Semi-official exchanges take place with the chief assistant to M. Paul Morand, who has been charged by his Government with the liquidation of outstanding economic and commercial questions between France and the United Kingdom. M. Paul Morand himself has left for Vichy with the members of the French Embassy, in order to consult his Government, and has not yet returned to this country.

Mr. Cocks: Do we understand from that answer that the only communication we have from the Government at Vichy is through the United States Government?

Mr. Butler: I said that that is the channel of approach in France. The channel of approach here, semi-officially, is through M. Paul Morand.

Mr. McGovern: Is not the best approach through Hitler?

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give


an assurance that the French sailors who have opted to return to France, and are now awaiting repatriation, will not be allowed to leave this country before the reciprocal negotiations with the French Government to repatriate the British subjects now in unoccupied France are satisfactorily completed?

Mr. Butler: I regret that the negotiations which are proceeding with the French Government on this subject have not yet reached a stage which would enable me to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 14th August.

Mr. Purbrick: In view of the fact that since that date more of these French sailors have been repatriated, does my right hon. Friend not think that it is wrong that any French sailor, or any other French subject, should be allowed to go there, while our own subjects are not allowed to return here?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of that, but, as negotiations are still proceeding, I am unable at present to make any further statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

OBSERVERS (UNIFORM).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the resolution passed unanimously at a meeting of head observers held in Lincolnshire, on 21st July, 1940, protesting against the boiler suit uniforms which have been issued; whether he is aware that everyone declines to wear them; and will he, in order to strengthen the esprit de corps of all posts, provide observers with an Air Force blue uniform in two pieces?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am aware of the resolution referred to. I cannot agree that the present type of uniform, which is intended for working purposes only, is as unpopular as the hon. Member suggests. Certain improvements, moreover, are under consideration, which should remove any reasonable grounds for criticism. The introduction of a completely new type of uniform would involve heavy expenditure, which I do not think could be justified in present circumstances.

Mr. Liddall: Is the Minister not aware that the dye from these overalls has ruined many observers' suits; and why should not a two-piece uniform of Royal Air Force blue be distributed to the men?

Sir A. Sinclair: It certainly seems that the question of the dye should be considered when deciding on any improvement of the uniform. I shall be glad to consider any suggestions that the hon. Member may make.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Would not the appearance of the uniform in question be relieved by the wearing of a carnation?

Mr. Liddall: Will the Minister consider a two-piece uniform of Royal Air Force blue? That is what the men want.

Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, Sir; the hon. Member's suggestion will be taken into consideration.

NORTHERN IRELAND (DEFENCE).

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the threat of invasion by the enemy, he can assure the House that the Air Force is well placed, thoroughly equipped and fully prepared to meet successfully any attempted inroad of the enemy on Northern Ireland?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

DECORATIONS.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Air what conclusion has been reached on the question whether the Distinguished Flying Cross and Distinguished Flying Medal should be replaced by one decoration for which officers and airmen should both be eligible?

Sir A. Sinclair: As the hon. Member is aware, the question whether a change should be made of the kind suggested was referred for advice to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals in Time of War, on which all three military Services are represented. The Committee have now reported that it is their considered view that no change should be made in the present arrangements relative to the conditions of award for the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Distinguished Flying Medal. I have consulted my right hon. Friends the First Lord of the


Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, and I accept the Committee's recommendation.

Mr. Ammon: Is it right that this new Service should accept the snobbish traditions of the old Services, and that the sergeant pilots who distinguished themselves last week should have a decoration inferior to that of an officer?

Sir A. Sinclair: I must demur to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. There are no snobbish distinctions in the Royal Air Force. Nobody who has been around stations in the Royal Air Force and has seen the officers and men, and the sergeants, together would think that there was the slightest snobbishness. I must also demur most strongly to the idea that the Medal is in any way inferior hi honour.

Mr. Ammon: Why keep the distinction? Snobbishness is surely at the heart of it.

Sir A. Sinclair: There is no snobbishness. One of many reasons for keeping the Medal is the splendid traditions which have clustered around and now are associated with the Medal. Men who have that Medal are, I believe, just as proud as those who have the Cross.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is in the public mind that this class distinction rankles?

Sir A. Sinclair: I hope that hon. Members will try to remove that idea.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Why not make both decorations available to officers and men alike?

WIRELESS OPERATORS (TRAINING FEE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the hardship caused to a number of men ho responded to a Government appeal in April to train as wireless operators for the Mercantile Marine, and who are now informed that no vacancies exist when they have qualified, but that they may either volunteer for or be conscripted into the Royal Air Force as wireless operators; whether he is aware that many of these men, not possessing the £25 necessary for the course at the College of Wireless Telegraphy, borrowed the necessary money; and will he take steps to ensure that qualified students accepted into the

Royal Air Force are reimbursed the £25 expended on their training?

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the hardship caused to men who, at the invitation of the Government, commenced to train for employment as radio officers in the Merchant Navy at considerable personal expense, and who have now been informed that there are no vacancies but that they can join the Royal Air Force at a lower rank and pay, the amounts expended by such men will be refunded; and whether he will make a statement?

Sir A. Sinclair: Following a very full consideration of the cases referred to and of representations which have been received from other hon. Members, it has been decided that the amount of the fees actually paid, up to a limit of £25 may be refunded to qualified students on enlistment in the Royal Air Force for wireless duties. I understand that the average fees payable for the course in question are about £14.

Mr. R. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the position of the Watt Memorial College at Greenock, which was the subject of a Question on the Order Paper yesterday, the answer to which was deferred by him until to-day?

Mr. Gallacher: Does the Minister's answer apply to all the students who have passed through the training?

Sir A. Sinclair: All the students to whom the hon. Member's Question refers.

Mr. Liddall: Will the Minister see that no Communists are appointed?

Mr. Gibson: On a point of Order. I had a Question on the Paper yesterday in connection with the Watt Memorial College, Greenock, and my right lion. Friend asked me to wait until to-day for an answer. There is a supplementary point arising out of that Question. Many of the students at that college had heavy travelling expenses. Will they be reimbursed for that also?

Sir A. Sinclair: I do not think I can go further than I have gone. The Royal Air Force has gone some way in meeting the needs of these students, who were not, in fact, studying for the Royal Air Force, but were studying for the Mercantile Marine.

Mr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter, with the other Ministers concerned?

Sir A. Sinclair: It has been considered, and it is as a result of that consideration that I have given the answer that I have to-day.

ENEMY AIRCRAFT LOSSES (VERIFICATION).

Mr. Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the wide disparity between the British and German accounts of losses in air battles, he will state the methods used for checking and verifying our figures, in order that public confidence in the British announcements may be maintained?

Sir A. Sinclair: The casualties caused to enemy aircraft are classified under the three main headings of "Certainly Destroyed," "Probably Destroyed," and "Damaged." An enemy aircraft is deemed to have been certainly destroyed if it has been seen to hit the ground or sea, to break up in the air or to descend in flames. An enemy aircraft is counted as probably destroyed if it has been seen to break off combat in circumstances that lead to the conclusion that it must become a loss. The third category includes cases in which the enemy aircraft was considerably damaged, for example, its undercarriage had dropped, its engines had stopped or parts of the aircraft had been shot away.
On returning from combat, our pilots are interrogated by the Station Intelligence Officer. When reports from all of them have been received, the Intelligence Officer again interrogates the pilots concerned in cases where any doubt exists. The numbers of enemy aircraft in each of the three categories are then transmitted by each squadron to its Group Headquarters, and from there through Fighter Command Headquarters to the Air Ministry. Only enemy aircraft in the first category are included in official communiqués.
There is a strict instruction to pilots to exercise the utmost discretion in reporting. They are, in fact, on their honour, and the honour of their squadron as well as that of the Royal Air Force is involved. It can be asserted with confidence that the reports of our pilots tend to err on the side of understatement. It is known that enemy aircraft in the second

and third categories frequently fail to reach home, and no credit is taken for the losses inflicted on the enemy by those of our pilots who do not return. On several occasions during the last fortnight the total of enemy aircraft in the second and third categories has exceeded that in the first, and independent persons who have had access to the detailed figures have been impressed by the reserve with which the published total is assessed.

Mr. Watkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his clear and careful answer will give very great satisfaction throughout the country; and will he agree that we may tell everybody who is conscious of the disparity between British and German figures that we may dismiss the German figures as being mere propaganda?

Sir A. Sinclair: I think the hon. Member can safely say that, and that, if it was the fact that the Germans had shot down 878 machines of ours since 8th August, we should not be meeting here in such happy circumstances.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of this country are so proud of the Royal Air Force that they have always been satisfied that our figures are correct?

NARVIK EVACUATION (HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "LORIOUS").

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether either the log book of the staff officer, Coastal Command, or that of the naval liaison officer, Coastal Command, shows whether the A.O.C.- in-C., Coastal Command, was informed of the evacuation of Narvik prior to the sinking of His Majesty's ship "Glorious."

Sir A. Sinclair: For reasons of security, the decision to evacuate Narvik, which was of the highest secrecy, was not recorded in the log books to which the hon. Member refers. The A.O.C.- in-C., Coastal Command was, however, informed of the decision.

SINGAPORE (FIRESTONE FACTORY STRIKE).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the sit-down strike at Singapore on or about 24th June last, when 80 policemen


ejected from the Firestone factory, 300 strikers, of whom 200 were women, and arrested 32 women and eight men; under what powers the police were acting in ejecting the strikers; and what are the explicit terms of such powers of ejection?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The stay-in strike in the Firestone Company's factory began on 4th May, and some 200 men and 100 women were involved. The strikers prevented the management from entering the premises to remove rubber. Seditious anti-British meetings were continuously held on the premises, and a fighting corps was formed to resist attempts to break the strike. On 22nd June warrants of arrest under the Banishment Ordinance were executed by the police for the deportation of 37 men and nine women on the premises who were known alien anti-British agitators. No other workers were interfered with, and no objections were made. Some of the workers left of their own accord as they did not desire to resume work. The remainder stayed on the premises and resumed employment when the factory reopened a few days later.

Mr. Adams: Can my hon. Friend say whether the situation is all clear now?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir. The situation is clear, and from 1st July all rubber factories have been working with practically normal labour forces, and no further interference with employment has been reported.

Mr. Banfield: Will my hon. Friend, with his long experience of these matters, see that he sifts the wheat from the chaff in the statement he has made?

Mr. Hall: I have already done that, and I am satisfied that the Governor was quite justified in the action which he took.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. E. Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken by the Government during the last two years to implement the report of Major Orde Browne on labour conditions in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. George Hall: The most important of the recommendations contained in Major Orde Browne's report, namely, the creation of new machinery to deal with labour matters, has been adopted by the Government of Northern Rhodesia. A Labour Commissioner was appointed in 1938; and a separate Labour Department was created last year, and is in process of expansion. The Labour Commissioner has been appointed chairman of the Native Industrial Labour Advisory Board. An officer of the Department has been stationed in Southern Rhodesia to safeguard the interests of Northern Rhodesia natives working in that territory. Considerable progress has been made in improving the conditions in the Copper-belt since 1938 as the result of the appointment of welfare officers and welfare sisters, the building of schools and the provision of additional amenities for the mine workers and their families. Questions of recruitment and the control of immigration are receiving the attention of Government. Effect has been given by amending legislation to Major Orde Browne's recommendations for the improvement of the Employment of Natives Ordinance and of the regulations made under it.

Mr. Harvey: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether attention was also given to Major Orde Browne's statement about the urgent need of the enlargement of native reserves, as he said two and a quarter years ago that the position was critical?

Mr. Hall: That matter is under consideration at the present time.

Mr. Harvey: If the position was critical two and a quarter years ago, what action has been taken?

Mr. De la Bère: It is under active consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Sir Granville Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will, as part of reconstruction employment, take the initiative in planning forward the abolition of all railway level crossings except those in remote rural districts, so that consideration of a post-war scheme may not be embarked upon hurriedly and at the last moment?

The Minister of Transport (Sir John Reith): Yes, Sir. In the preparation of post-war schemes the Ministry's policy of promoting or encouraging the elimination of level crossings is being continued.

RAILWAY REVENUE.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will ask the Charges (Railway Control) Consultative Committee, as an alternative to suggesting methods of increasing revenue, to recommend savings that may be effected by the main line railways by such means as the dismissal of redundant directors, more modern methods of working and other similar economies?

Sir J. Reith: The Consultative Committee's function is only to advise on the adjustment of charges to meet variations in working costs outside the companies' control, due to changes in rates of wages and prices of materials and to operation under war conditions, so far as they can be proved. The railway companies already have an incentive to economy since, under the terms of Government control, they retain a direct interest in net revenue.

Mr. Butcher: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he will give an assurance that, in view of the very heavy burden which is now placed upon the community in respect of railway rates, there will be no further increase until all possible alternatives have been explored?

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir.

RAILWAY COMPANIES' APPLICATION (SHARE PRICES).

Mr. Sloan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, on Tuesday, 13th August, a few hours before the publication of the "London Gazette" which contained the Ministry's statement that the railway companies' application for an increase in fares and charges had been granted, Great Western Railway ordinary shares rose 30s., London Midland and Scottish Railway rose 15s., and Southern Railway deferred rose £3; and can he explain from which source in his Department the leakage arose?

Sir J. Reith: There was no leakage from the Ministry, and, of course, no increase has yet been granted. The Railway Executive Committee supply periodically statements of variations in

working costs and proposals for a corresponding adjustment of rates in accordance with the agreement between Government and railways. On 9th August the proposals were referred by the Ministry to the Charges Consultative Committee for public inquiry and advice. On 12th August the committee sent copies to the London County Council and various trade associations; also notice of public inquiry to the "London Gazette" for publication next day.

Mr. Sloan: Am I to understand that it was only by chance that the shares rose immediately before the publication of the information?

Sir J. Reith: I inquired into the share rise, and I am informed that in fact no increase of any significance took place. The movements in the prices of junior stocks that day were considered minute and might have been brought about by very small-scale buying.

TOLL-GATE CHARGES (ARMED FORCES).

Mr. De La Bère: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now make some further statement regarding toll-gate charges to the Armed Forces as regards their application to private tolls on property, where members of the Armed Forces are proceeding on duty?

Sir J. Reith: In view of the feeling of the House last Wednesday, I wrote next day to all owners of private tolls asking whether for the duration of the war they would be willing to grant exemption for members of the Armed Forces when on duty. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the letter, and will inform him of the result as soon as possible.

Mr. De La Bère: Would it not be just to place on record the commendable promptitude which my right hon. Friend took in the matter?

Colonel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to publish the results of his inquiries when he receives them, so that the whole country will know of them?

Sir J. Reith: I should prefer to inform the House first. With regard to the other matter, I feel very gratified at receiving such commendation from my hon. Friend.

RAILWAY FACILITIES (EDINBURGH KYLE OF LOCHALSH).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the train service between Edinburgh and Kyle of Lochalsh or Mallaig; and whether he will take steps to improve the service by ensuring that passengers from Edinburgh may travel by one of two trains arriving at these destinations on the same day as that of departure from Edinburgh?

Sir J. Reith: My inquiries are not yet complete. I will communicate as soon as possible with my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will take him to find out the particulars of this train service in Scotland?

Mr. Mathers: Is not the only point in the Question not so much the getting to Mallaig and Kyle of Lochalsh as being able to get there, and away to the islands as quickly as possible?

Sir J. Reith: I will communicate with both hon. Members as soon as possible.

PROHIBITED AREAS (RETURN RAILWAY TICKETS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of. Transport whether he is aware that return tickets are not issued from places in the South or Midlands of Scotland to stations in the prohibited areas; and whether he will take steps to secure that travellers to these stations are not thus deprived of the benefit of return tickets at a much lower cost than two single tickets for the same journey?

Sir J. Reith: I am told that the railways still issue return tickets to places in prohibited areas, but purchasers are warned that they will have to prove their 1.ght to enter the areas.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that reply is made known, because there is a widespread impression among Highlanders living in the Lowlands of Scotland that they are unable to get return tickets?

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir, I will.

Mr. Hicks: Do I understand that return tickets are issued from Scotland?

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that in the last three months 304 child pedestrians and cyclists were killed, compared with 267 in the corresponding period last year, what action he proposes to take to deal with the increased danger to young people on the roads?

Sir J. Reith: The figures are deplorable. I informed the House recently that a road safety publicity campaign was being arranged for the autumn. I am also proposing a grant to the National "Safety First" Association, who are to deal particularly with young people.

Mr. Watkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman in that publicity campaign particularly emphasise the danger to children through going on to public roads?

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir.

HORSE TRANSPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the desirability of reducing as far as possible during the war the employment of transport which consumes petrol, he will consider the advisability of setting up an inquiry into the possibilities of extending the use of horse transport in all cases where economy rather than speed is the primary consideration; and whether he has taken any steps since hostilities began to encourage maintenance of, or reversion to, horse transport with the object of economising important fuel?

Sir J. Reith: I entirely sympathise with the suggestion, but I hardly think an inquiry is necessary. The rationing of liquid fuel is in itself an incentive to the maximum use of horse transport. It should be remembered that any substantial increase would involve importation of horses and increased demand for feeding-stuffs, which are already in short supply.

Mr. Mathers: Does the same objection apply to licences of vehicles propelled by electricity? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where petrol vehicles have been taken from traders for war purposes the traders are finding great difficulty in getting licences for the electrically propelled vehicles which they have bought in their place?

Sir J. Reith: I am sorry I do not quite understand how that arises out of this particular Question, but if the hon. Member will explain to me further afterwards, I will deal with the matter.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Is the Minister aware that light horses are cheap and cannot be given away?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

DEFENCE AREAS.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Information whether his letter, of 19th July, is intended to urge the people who live in the Defence Areas to quit their homes and transfer themselves to some other areas; if so, will he also indicate the areas in which they can find accommodation; and who is to meet the costs of removal?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): My letter of 19th July was intended to impress on the public that if and when an invasion occurred, they should stay where they were, but that meanwhile voluntary evacuation of persons not in employment might be encouraged in those cases where it was deemed advisable by local notification. The Government do not accept responsibility for finding accommodation for or meeting the expenses of, persons who evacuate Defence Areas otherwise than under an official Government scheme, nor can I undertake to indicate the areas in which accommodation can be secured.

Mr. Hicks: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that they are to stay where they are and quit at the same time? In so far as people are affected from Berwick-on-Tweed to Poole in Dorset, and are about 35 miles inland, can he give me some indication of how people should behave in those areas?

Mr. Cooper: The short answer is that people, if invasion starts, should stay where they are, but meanwhile in certain districts to which notification was given it was desirable that many people not actively employed on important work should quit these districts prior to the possibility of invasion.

DIRECTOR-GENERAL.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Information the reason for the resignation of Sir Kenneth Lee; whether a

successor has been appointed; and, if so, the duties such successor will perform and the remuneration he will receive?

Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Information the date upon which Sir Kenneth Lee tendered his resignation and the date when Mr. Frank Pick was selected to succeed him; and, in view of the fact that Sir Kenneth Lee served without remuneration, on what basis the salary was fixed at £2,500 per annum and the subsequent appointment made?

Mr. Cooper: Sir Kenneth Lee offered me his resignation at the time of my taking office. I asked him then to remain as Director-General. Subsequently I came to the conclusion that a change was desirable. His resignation took effect from 7th August. Mr. Frank Pick was appointed to succeed Sir Kenneth Lee on 12th August as Director-General. Subject to the Minister, the Director-General has complete charge of the work of the Ministry. His remuneration of £2,500 a year was fixed by agreement with him.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this change is worth the extra £2,500 which it is now costing the country?

Mr. Cooper: I am confident that it will be.

WAR-TIME SOCIAL SURVEY.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister of Information whether he will instruct the investigators, working for the social survey under his Department, to make special inquiries in selected districts of Great Britain with regard to the examinations which aged people have to undergo before the Assistance Board Appeal Tribunals when applying for supplementary old age pensions, in order to test the public feeling which has been aroused throughout the country about the hardships suffered by these old people and the ordeals they have to undergo when applying for more money to keep body and soul together?

Mr. Cooper: The matter referred to in the Question is the concern of another Government Department, and I should not take the action suggested except at that Department's request.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what Department is responsible, so that I may get after that Department?

Mr. Cooper: The Ministry of Health.

WIRELESS LICENCES.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Minister of Information whether, having regard to the fact that there are about 12,250,000 occupied houses in the United Kingdom and that only 9,065,000 wireless licences have been issued, he can furnish any information as to the reasons why such a large number of households do not listen in?

Mr. Cooper: A few households are without sets because they dislike wireless, a larger number because they cannot afford sets of their own. Still others-how large a number I cannot say—have sets for which they have, regrettably, not obtained licences. The ratio of sets to houses in the United Kingdom compares favourably with that in other countries.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not highly satisfactory that there are so many sets among the people of this country?

Mr. Cooper: indicated assent.

REGIONAL NEWS LEITERS.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Minister of Information for what purpose the North-Eastern regional officer of the Ministry is issuing a News Letter, and by whose authority and at whose expense this is being done?

Mr. Cooper: The News Letter issued by my North-Eastern regional information officer is designed to keep the members of the local information committees in touch with the work of the Ministry. He has a general authority for this purpose from the Ministry, who bear the expense.

Mr. Culverwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman read this News Letter, because it is most important and undesirable that a public servant employed by his Ministry should distribute a pamphlet imputing dishonourable and sordid motives to Members of Parliament and the Press which criticises the Ministry? Will the Minister take immediate steps to suppress its activities?

Mr. Cooper: The officer in question has had it pointed out to him that it is most

undesirable that he should have printed the matter he did in this News Letter. I do not think he imputed unworthy or dishonourable motives to Members of this House.

Mr. Culverwell: Quite apart from whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it attributed dishonourable motives, which is the general opinion, does he think that this sort of News Letter is in any way necessary or serves any useful function? Furthermore, does he think it desirable that attached to this News Letter should be a confidential document giving the amount of damage, or lack of damage, done by enemy aircraft in different parts of the country and the places where it has occurred, which news is concealed from Members of Parliament and is given to various people in the area who have no responsibility whatever?

Mr. Cooper: There is a subsequent Question on the Paper dealing with the last part of the Question as to giving local information. With regard to the first part, whether the News Letter is necessary, that is a matter which is largely left to the regional news officers.

Mr. Culverwell: Surely it is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility to stop this sort of thing?

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that there is a difference between the North-Eastern and the Northern regions?

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Information whether the Ministry of Information section of the North-Eastern Regional Commissioner's Office is directly responsible to the Regional Commissioner or to the Minister; and whether he has authorised or approved the statement on this subject made by Mr. R. K. Bacon in the Ministry of Information section in the Regional News Letter on Parliament and the Press?

Mr. Cooper: The Regional Information Officer referred to by the hon. Member is responsible to me. As regards the second part of the Question, I find some difficulty in identifying the statement to which the hon. Member refers; but it follows from what I have said that no statement to the effect that the Regional Information Officer is responsible to the Regional Commissioner has been authorised.

Mr. Granville: Will the Minister show his sincerity in this matter by removing this gentleman from office?

Mr. Woods: Is this News Letter submitted to the right hon. Gentleman's Department for censorship; and, if not, is it fair to the London Press, which submits its matter to a censorship, to be criticised by a person in a Government publication, the matter of which is not submitted to the censorship of the Department?

Mr. Levy: Since this gentleman slandered and attacked Yorkshire Members of Parliament, is no disciplinary action to be taken with regard to him?

Mr. Cooper: I have already said that the attention of the officer in question has been drawn to this matter. As a matter of fact, the criticism of the Press chiefly consisted of reprints of remarks from other organs of the Press which disagreed among themselves.

Mr. Charles Brown: Does this officer belong to a Fifth Column or not?

Mr. John Morgan: Is the Minister defending this gentleman's action?

Mr. Culverwell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Information whether, irrespective of the accuracy of the statements, he has approved of the principle of civil servants, in the persons of officials of his Ministry, indulging in criticisms of newspapers and Members of Parliament such as appeared in the North-Eastern Regional News Letter, dated 8th August, 1940?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that, under the heading of "Private and confidential," information as to the location and precise results of air raids on this country, not hitherto given to Members of Parliament, is being published weekly to hundreds of members of Information Committees in Ministry Regional News Letters; and whether either by distribution of News Letters, or otherwise, such information will in future be made available to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Cooper: Information concerning the effects of local air raids is in some cases communicated confidentially to members of Information Committees by Regional Information Officers by means of Regional Bulletins and News Letters, in order that they may be in a position to check or prevent extravagant rumours circulating in their area. Such information is similar to that given in confidence to the Press, and it is subject to the same proviso that it is not for publication. Regional Information Officers are being instructed to send copies of these Bulletins to Members of Parliament in the area concerned in future.

Mr. Culverwell: Will the Minister inform the House under what order or in what way it is thought desirable that confidential information regarding air raids, which is not available to Members of Parliament, should be distributed to people in the local areas, who have no responsibility whatever?

Mr. Cooper: I have just said that the information is to be made available to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Culverwell: Then does the Minister think it desirable to make it available?

INFORMATION TO FRENCH PEOPLE.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Information whether steps are being taken to inform the French people of the manner in which they have been betrayed from within, and to call upon them to abide by the principles of the French Revolution and its watchword "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity," and to repudiate the acts and authority of the Government of Vichy?

Mr. Cooper: It is the aim of our publicity to inform the French people as fully as possible of the facts of the situation and thus provide them with the material for forming their own opinion of recent events.

Mr. Cocks: In view of the fact that the Germans are making most vigorous efforts to tell the French people that they have been betrayed by Britain, ought not we to tell them that they have been betrayed by the traitors of Vichy?

Captain Plugge: In view of the fact that France owned 26 broadcasting stations operating on 26 different channels, is my right hon. Friend satisfied


that a few 15 minutes' periods of broadcast in French on one English channel is sufficient to carry this information to anything but a small sprinkle of French listeners?

Mr. Cooper: As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) is aware, the Germans now possess a great many more transmitters than we do, and in that we are at a disadvantage, and we have to distribute our broadcasting time as best we can. With regard to the Supplementary Question of the hon. Member opposite, we are doing our best to tell the French people the true facts of the situation, and they now have to form their own opinion.

Captain Graham: Would not my right hon. Friend strongly deprecate our pointing out to the French nation the sort of Government we thought they ought to have, however little we may think of the Vichy Government?

Sir T. Moore: Would not French people in this country be the best people to give the information?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Information whether the propaganda undertaken amongst the people of France is submitted to, and receives, the assent of the Foreign Office?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir, there is the fullest consultation.

Mr. Cocks: Is the Minister hampered at all by Foreign Office fears of the results of a popular uprising in France?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister taking ail measures to ensure as much as possible that this propaganda to France shall be done by Frenchmen who are loyal to our cause?

Mr. Cooper: indicated assent.

SPAIN

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Information what steps are being taken to make known the British point of view on Spain?

Mr. Cooper: The foreign policy of His Majesty's Government is made the subject of public statements from time to tine. These statements receive publicity through the usual channels, namely, the Press and the wireless.

Sir A. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the British case is going by default in Spain and that the Germans are very much more active in their propaganda? Is it possible to send British newspapers to Spain?

Mr. Cooper: My hon. and gallant Friend asks in the Question whether the British point of view on Spain is being made known, and not whether our views are being made known in Spain.

Sir A. Knox: I meant "in" Spain.

Mr. Hicks: If it is intended that our views shall be made known in Spain, will the Minister consult with the British Trades Union Congress in order that the really collective point of view of Great Britain may be conveyed to Spain and the Spanish people?

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we do not dispose of a medium broadcasting station that covers the Iberian Peninsula?

DEFENCE REGULATIONS.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large number of Regulations being issued affecting the liberties and property of the people, he will explain the process which is followed before such Regulations are issued by the various Government Departments, Ministers and/or officials concerned; and what steps he is taking to ensure that all persons who were appointed to positions of authority in peace time possess the temperament and capacity to exercise the wider and more arbitrary powers now being conferred upon them?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I have been asked to reply. I presume my hon. Friend has in mind Regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940. Drafts of all such Regulations are fully considered by the Government before they are made. The Regulations are laid before Parliament and, as my hon. Friend is aware, either House can within 28 days pass a Resolution for the annulment of any such Regulations. This procedure does not apply to the Orders and Rules made by Ministers under individual Regulations, but the action of Ministers can, of course, always be discussed and criti-


cised in Parliament. As regards the last part of the Question, the suitability for their posts of all persons appointed to positions of authority is constantly under review.

PRODUCTION COUNCIL.

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether regular meetings of the Production Council are being held; if so, who is responsible for presiding over these meetings; and whether he is satisfied that this machinery is now the best method of increasing the supply of war materials in this country?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The Production Council meets at frequent intervals, with myself as chairman. Its functions are to give general directions as to the organisation and the priority of production for war purposes in accordance with the policy laid down by the War Cabinet, and I think that it discharges these functions with reasonable success. As regards the last part of the Question, I am certainly of opinion that the machinery for giving effect to the Council's directions ought to be modified from time to time to meet changing conditions. Consideration is constantly being given to this aspect of the problem of war production.

Mr. Granville: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this elaborate machinery will give the country the maximum supply of war materials, and would it not be better to appoint somebody to cut through red tape rather than create it?

Mr. Greenwood: I think that if the hon. Member was aware of the facts, he would know that the Production Council has cut through red tape.

Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the agenda provided for him for the proceedings of the Production Council? Does he not feel that it would be to the advantage of himself and his colleagues if he extended his consultations?

Mr. Greenwood: The agenda is not supplied to me. I provide it myself on the information supplied to me. As regards consultations with outside people, that is always going on with the Departments represented on the Council.

Mr. Woodburn: Will consideration be given to the report of the Select Committee in regard to the important question of priorities, because this system requires overhauling?

Mr. Greenwood: I have already communicated with the Ministers concerned, drawing their attention to the report and asking for their observations in relation to the discussions which the Council is now having on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL AND ROYAL ARMS FACTORY (WEEKLY EARNINGS).

Sir R. Clarry: asked the Minister of Supply what percentage increase has taken place in the average weekly earnings during July, as compared with the average weekly earnings during April, at Woolwich Arsenal and the Royal Arms Factory, Enfield, respectively?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The increases referred to were 17 per cent. at Woolwich and 28 per cent. at Enfield.

LEATHER STOCKS.

Sir G. Gibson: asked the Minister of Supply whether any decision has been reached for the absorption of the large stocks of leather originally sold to the French Government through the Ministry of Supply, for the making into boots for the French forces, now lying in the hands of English tanners or the utilisation of those stocks in the manufacture of boots for the Home Guard?

Mr. H. Morrison: Arrangements are being made to absorb, as far as possible, in satisfaction of Government requirements, the leather originally bought by the French Government and suitable for Service purposes, but I am not yet able to say whether it will be possible to use the whole quantity.

Sir G. Gibson: If no decision has been arrived at by the Minister, what is to happen to those who are holding the supplies and have not received payment for them?

Mr. Morrison: The Question on the Paper is whether we are absorbing them as far as we need them. That is what


we are doing. If there is a surplus, that will be a matter for separate consideration.

Sir G. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these orders were placed by the French Buying Commission through the Ministry of Supply, and therefore it is the responsibility of his Department? Will he take over these goods still in the hands of English tanners who are not receiving payment in the meantime?

Mr. Morrison: I could not say without notice whether the orders were actually placed with the Ministry of Supply. In any case they were placed by the French Government. It would be unwise in answer to a Question to assume financial responsibility for orders placed on behalf of another Government. I will look into the point.

SHELL CASES (SALE)

Mr. Sloan: asked the Minister of Supply who authorised the sale of brass shell cases to dealers at Woolwich Arsenal on 23rd July; what price was received for them from the dealers; and what price was paid for them when resold to Woolwich Arsenal?

Mr. H. Morrison: The sale by public auction of the shell cases in question was authorised by my Department, and the amount realised was the maximum controlled price for this class of material. As the cases were unserviceable, the question of their re-purchase by Woolwich Arsenal toes not arise, but after re-smelting the metal will no doubt be used in the production of war material.

PAPER.

Mr. Charles Brown: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that, though he is urging people to save all kinds of waste paper, such organisations as the "Safety First" Association are sending to clerks to local authorities numbers of posters which cannot be effectively displayed under existing conditions; and whether he will take steps to check this waste as soon as possible?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed that the National "Safety First" Association consult subscribers as to the number of posters they require for display and that the association recently asked all their

members to let them know whether unnecessary posters were received. If my hon. Friend will give me details of the cases he has in mind, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the number of road accidents, is it not desirable that nothing should be done to hamper the work of the "Safety First" Association?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter that the Minister of Transport must obviously keep in mind. It is only a question of seeing that the supply is adequate to the need.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Transport, who is shortly arranging a week dealing with "Safety First"?

Mr. Morrison: The Minister of Transport is constantly in touch with the National "Safety First" Association.

Mr. Cocks: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received information on the subject from me in relation to posters sent to the County Council of Nottinghamshire?

Mr. Morrison: There was some misunderstanding between the association and the county council, but that has now been put right.

IRON RAILINGS, LONDON.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will request the different London boroughs to investigate, in conjunction both with tenants and ground landlords, the possibility of removing for manufacturing purposes large quantities of existing railings in their various areas?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am in touch with the London boroughs on the subject, and substantial quantities of railings have already been obtained. If I have any reason to be dissatisfied with the results obtained by the present methods, I shall not hesitate to take further steps, and the nature of these steps is now under consideration.

Mr. Thorne: Is there a shortage of scrap iron at present anywhere?

Mr. Morrison: In some respects there is sometimes a surplus from the point of view of getting it effectively used, but


it is a good thing that we should have reserves; nevertheless it is desirable that my machinery should be such that we can rapidly deal with all the scrap received.

Mr. Thorne: Are we to understand that there is a shortage now?

Mr. Morrison: There are shortages in certain respects, but on the other hand, one must relate the collection of scrap to facilities for transporting it and disposing of it, and that we are trying to do.

Sir F. Fremantle: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people have railings but that it is difficult to extract them?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

CONDENSED MILK.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that some dissatisfaction is expressed in parts of South Wales and Monmouthshire regarding the canned condensed milk ration, which is on a basis of 45 per cent. of the sales in 1938, but that with an increased working population, and large numbers of evacuees, the quantity now available to meet present requirements does not reach the 45 per cent., but is rather in the region of 20 per cent.; and whether he will consider adopting a sliding scale which shall be related to the incidence of population?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): The consumption of condensed milk varies considerably from district to district, and it would not be satisfactory for distribution to be regulated solely by reference to population. For some months the supplies released for distribution have been restricted with the object of conserving stocks, but during August the quantities released were increased, and from 1st September the distribution will be based upon more recent statistical information than has hitherto been available.

BUTTER AND MARGARINE.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will explain the position of consumers who have registered for

butter with farmers and who now require margarine, as these people cannot get supplies of margarine on their coupons, as, obviously, farmers do not retail supplies of margarine?

Mr. Boothby: Such consumers should notify the local food office that they desire to re-register with a retailer who sells margarine as well as butter.

MINISTRY OF FOOD (RETAIL TRADE ADVISER)

Mr. Woods: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the salary of Mr. Alexander Greig, retail adviser to the Ministry of Food; whether he is a full-time officer of the Department; and whether he has resigned his position as joint managing director of Allied Suppliers, Limited, and his directorships of all its associated grocery trade businesses for the period of his appointment?

Mr. Boothby: Mr. Alexander Greig, Retail Trade Adviser to the Ministry of Food, is serving in that capacity without remuneration. He is giving full-time service to the Ministry, having been granted leave of absence for the purpose by Allied Suppliers, Limited, as a contribution by them to the national war effort.

FLOUR (STORAGE).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any recommendations have been, or will be, sent to the millers to avoid storing flour on the top floors of glass-roofed buildings, or in other situations where there is a risk of damage by breakage of glass windows?

Mr. Boothby: Yes, Sir; the Ministry has recommended all flour millers to avoid as far as possible storing flour on the top floors of glass-roofed buildings or in other situations where there is a risk of damage by the breaking of glass windows, unless suitable protective measures can be applied.

ICE CREAM.

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether ice cream is considered a manufactured milk product; and, if not, will he endeavour to arrange that, when the new Order prohibiting the sale of


cream comes into force on 1st October, arrangements can be made to continue the supplies necessary for this trade in view of its food value for children?

Mr. Boothby: The Milk Marketing Board supplies milk for ice cream at the appropriate manufacturing price. It is not expected that the proposed Order to prohibit the sale of cream as from 1st October next will materially affect the ice cream trade.

SURPLUS VEGETABLES.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that several tons of runner or French beans, in edible condition, were handed over for use as pig feed by a Spitalfields firm to a well-known Essex farmer recently because of a temporary glut in supply to that market; and whether agents of the Ministry are stationed at the leading food supply markets, such as Spitalfields, authorised to take over and utilise local surpluses for preservation or economical disposal in other areas?

Mr. Boothby: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a similar Question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on 14th August.

Mr. Morgan: With regard to the latter part of the Question, whether we should have persons present at food supply markets with a view to absorbing surpluses in a proper way, are such officers appointed?

Mr. Boothby: As far as the appointment of special persons is concerned, we have our ordinary means of observation through the divisional food officers and our trade advisers.

Mr. Morgan: Are they entitled to buy them up, or do they merely observe them?

Mr. Boothby: I stated in my previous answer that the cost of such a project would he excessive in relation to the results that we might expect to obtain.

Mr. De la Bère: Do we not want some new system altogether? The whole thing wants looking into by the Minister.

Mr. Boothby: The whole thing has been looked into.

RESTAURANT MENUS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it has been found necessary to warn any restaurants as to the menus which they are offering to their clients; and, if so, can he give details?

Mr. Boothby: No warning such as is mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend has been issued.

Sir T. Moore: Is my hon. Friend not aware that there is no real standard system among restaurants and hotels in London? I cannot speak for outside. Is it not a matter for investigation?

Mr. Boothby: We have issued a general warning. I have no reason to suppose that it is not being on the whole observed.

DOMESTIC COAL SUPPLY.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to make a statement on the proposed scheme for the distribution and sale of house coal; whether all the parties interested have been consulted on the policy and the detailed proposals affecting the purchase, and transportation and the retail delivery of house coal; and whether the Mines Department has given approval to the scheme as it was submitted by the coal distributing trade?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): In order to safeguard the house coal position for next winter to the maximum possible extent, discussions have been proceeding between the Mines Department, the distributors and the coal-owners on comprehensive proposals for making the most efficient use of available transport facilities, both in regard to the movement of coal by rail and sea from collieries to depôts and also from depôts to consumers. The progressive withdrawal of men and vehicles for military service is making it imperative in most areas to introduce at an early date cooperative arrangements for the retail distribution of house coal which shall gradually ensure that delivery is made from the most convenient depôt and with the minimum of overlapping. With the approval and co-operation of my Department, steps are now being taken by the distributive trade to organise arrange


ments of this character wherever necessary, the details being adjusted to the circumstances of each area. The problem of facilitating the movement of coal by rail and sea is no less urgent, and I am anxious that a decision on this part of the scheme should be reached as soon as possible. It involves, however, many interests and conflicting considerations, and discussions are still going on with all the parties directly concerned.

Mr. Macdonald: May I ask my hon. Friend, first, whether this scheme will add to the price of coal to the home consumers; secondly, why, having consulted the Mining Association, he failed to consult the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain; and, thirdly, whether present schemes under past Acts of Parliament do not provide sufficient machinery to deal with this question?

Mr. Grenfell: The answer to my hon. Friend's first Question is that it is proposed in this scheme that a levy of 1½d a ton shall be charged on all coal sold to meet the expenses of control and supervision. Secondly, the partners in the industry have all been made aware of these proposals. It is not usually required by the Mineworkers' Federation that they should take part in negotiations of this kind, but they have been made aware of the proposals by the Consultative Committee, of which they are members, with the other parties. Thirdly, there is nothing in the law or in regulations that enables us to do what we shall do under this scheme.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the interests of the men who distribute the coal from door to door?

Mr. Grenfell: Many of the men who distribute the coal from door to door are being called away. One of the major reasons for this scheme of reorganisation is the fact that coal loaders and lorry drivers are due for military service, and their calling up has been postponed by special arrangements from month to month. Many of the people will have gone away by October, and we must have a scheme to make better use of the equipment and labour available.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ronald Ross: Does the scheme embrace Northern Ireland, and, if so, who represented the interests of Northern Ireland in the consultations?

Mr. Grenfell: I am sorry that I do not know whether Northern Ireland has taken part in these discussions. These discussions have taken place between the organised coal merchants in this country, numbering some 27,000, and representatives of the owners and the Mines Department. If Northern Ireland has been left out of the scheme and is likely to suffer in consequence, even now I invite them to come in.

Sir R. Ross: Is it no matter to the Minister that a country with a population of the size of that of New Zealand should be entirely ignored in such matters?

Mr. Grenfell: Not only because of the number of the population, but because of the qualities of the people, I would not entirely ignore Northern Ireland.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal, with regard to the meeting of the House to-morrow fortnight, whether any statement the Prime Minister may make on the war situation will be made on the Motion for the Adjournment, so that Members may make any contributions they think fit? May I also give notice that, if such a Debate does not take up the greater part of the Sitting, a number of hon. Members would like to raise questions connected with the general coal problem.

Mr. Attlee: If a statement is made, it will be made on the Motion for the Adjournment, so there will be an opportunity for Debate. As regards the other point, it will be noted.

Mr. Cocks: In view of the fact that the House may only meet one day a week, will the Government consider giving extra time for Questions on that one day?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.

Sir Richard Acland: A new procedure seems to have been introduced which, I hope, we may have regularised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) gave notice, in public, that a certain number of Members wanted to raise certain questions Is that procedure to be substituted for the rather vague operation of the "usual channels" which has gone on since this present Government was formed? This seems to me to be a new departure.

Mr. Maxton: I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, as you are very much involved in the Adjournment procedure, and as it has been a practice in this House that Adjournment Debates should be opportunities for back benchers, that what is disturbing us is that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be giving a Front Bench intimation of an intention to take all the time available, to-morrow, on the Adjournment Motion, for the discussion of a specific subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We want to know whether that is not a departure from the ordinary practice of this House, and whether Members who have not given notice across the Floor of the House can also have their opportunity, if time is available, to raise other subjects?

Mr. Speaker: I conclude that the hon. Member is referring to the Adjournment Debate to-morrow?

Sir R. Acland: Thursday fortnight.

Mr. Maxton: Both issues are involved.

Mr. Speaker: As regards the Motion to-morrow, it is usual that notice should be given to me of subjects which various Members wish to raise, but not across the Floor of the House. As regards the Motion for the Adjournment to-morrow fortnight, that comes under the usual rule which we have adopted since the war began.

Sir Irving Albery: Can the Lord Privy Seal say if and when the Government are to proceed with the War Savings (Determination of Needs) Bill?

Mr. Attlee: Consultation is going on in regard to that Bill, and I cannot make any statement at present.

Sir Percy Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is very strong feeling among the people concerned —old age pensioners and people coming under public assistance—that there should be an early decision because thousands of people are affected by it? Does he realise that there is a strong feeling that this Bill should be pushed through in some form or other as soon as possible?

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that that was why the Bill was introduced, but in view of the feelings aroused on the subject, and the lack of harmony in the House, the Bill has been deferred for consultation.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Lord Privy Seal say with whom the consultations are taking place?

Mr. Attlee: An endeavour is being made to find out the best way of fulfilling the pledge given by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to receive the views of any Members who may wish to make suggestions to him.

Mr. Lewis: If the Lord Privy Seal wishes to know the opinion of the House in regard to the Bill, is not the easiest way to read the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Hicks: Will the Lord Privy Seal reconsider his answer in regard to a longer time for Questions when the House meets only once a week, in view of the fact that Questions are carefully thought out, as against many inane contributions made to Debates?

Mr. Attlee: We will consider that when it happens that the House meets only once a week.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow at Eleven of the clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the clock; and that at Four of the clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—[Mr. Attlee.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Twelfth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 158.]

Thirteenth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;f to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 159.]

Ordered,
That a Message he sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Viscount Weir to attend to be examined, as a Witness, before the Sub-Committee on Supply Services, appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Sir Herbert Williams.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Finance (No. 2) Bill,

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, without Amendment.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Thursday, 5th September."—[Mr. Attlee.]

3.57 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I beg to move, to leave out "Thursday, 5th September," and to add "Wednesday next."
My reason for moving this Amendment is that it is the only opportunity which hon. Members have of taking part in any discussion on the question of the Adjournment of the House, and I wish to express a view which is felt not only by some of my hon. Friends and myself, but also in the country as a whole. I have no desire to criticise the Government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member moves to leave out "Thursday, 5th September," and to insert "Wednesday, 28th August." That is not a Motion to criticise the Government. The question of the omission of the one date and the substitution of the other, and the reasons for doing so, is the only question that can be raised.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: May I be allowed to give the House some of the reasons which have actuated me in moving this Amendment? I must say that I am supported in moving it by reading the Adjournment discussion which took place in this House a year ago on a very similar Amendment. The Amendment on that occasion was discussed in terms of great eloquence by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, who at that time sat on the Opposition side of the House. His view was confirmed in an equally eloquent speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, then Leader of the Liberal party, and it was eventually added to in prestige and substance with inimitable force, by the present Prime Minister, who at that time was sitting below the Gangway.
I do not desire to quote the arguments used on that occasion. All I wish to say is that many of the very powerful arguments which were then advanced are applicable to the position we are in today. It is true that on that occasion we were not at war, although war was threatening, but I do not think anyone in this House would argue that the reasons which were given then against

the Adjournment of the House for a long period, are any less forcible to-day, because we are at war, especially having regard to the kind of war in which we are engaged. It is also true that the present proposal is for an Adjournment of a fortnight, whereas last August an Adjournment for a much longer period was proposed. But I submit that a fortnight is a very long time. It is a considerable period even in times of peace; in war it is a very long period and, in warfare of the type which we are now experiencing, a fortnight may be of the gravest importance to this country and to the world in general.
We were much reassured by the address which the Prime Minister gave yesterday and it is true that, from some points of view, we might adjourn after a speech of that character with feelings of confidence which, some time ago, we might not have had. But we have had speeches made on many occasions and in many parts of the world prognosticating the course of events and even my right hon. Friend, who has dealt with the position in this House with great frankness and honesty and candour, has found some of his own statements falsified by events. We speak about a fortnight as if it were of no account, but we should remember that Norway was subjugated in less than a week, Holland went down in less than a week, Belgium in less than a fortnight and the country which was our great ally-France with its powerful Empire-was compelled, through the absence of the sittings of the French Parliament at the time, to sign a humiliating peace which is a source of such great sorrow to so many of the French nation to-day. In those circumstances I ask: Is it wise that the House should adjourn for a fortnight in the present circumstances? In the Motion on the Order Paper as it stands, there is no provision for summoning the House earlier than 5th September. I speak subject to correction and perhaps there is to be a further Motion to that effect, but that does not invalidate my argument. There should be a sitting of the House, even if only for one day, within the next fortnight.
Is anyone prepared to deny that the next fortnight may be even more important in the history of this country and of the world, than the last fortnight


has been? The days are growing shorter, the nights are growing longer. The North Sea and the English Channel, never too peaceful or too smooth, will be becoming more turbulent. This next fortnight may mean everything with regard to Hitler's attack. It is full of great possibilities for this country and the world. Suppose that in the next fortnight-I do not say it will happen and I am sure we all sincerely hope it will not happen-this country sustains anything in the nature of calamity or disaster. Is it not right that this House should be sitting, so that the Prime Minister may be able to calm and reassure the nation? On the other hand, suppose, as we all hope, those young heroes of whom we are so proud, defeat this "blitzkreig" and smash it up. Is it not equally important that this House should be sitting in order that the Prime Minister may have the opportunity of giving praise where praise is due, and tendering the thanks of the nation to our fighting men?
The argument has been used that Ministers are tired and that the House is tired, but, after all, we are meeting only three days a week and there is no great political conflict in progress. Many of us have been long enough here to remember periods of political strife during which one never got home from the House before midnight, for days on end. The House at present is a calm, quiet, in offensive assembly, and if the strain of attending on three days in the week in those circumstances is proving too severe for Ministers or Members I suggest that they ought to have some examination made of their physical condition. This House since the war has done magnificent work. It has functioned since the war as it never functioned in my short experience of it and those with longer experience would, I think, agree that it has not functioned, within the last generation or two generations, with anything like the efficiency it has shown since the war started. It has shown itself a free assembly in which every Member has the right to express his views. It has been able to repair injustices and initiate reforms on more than one occasion. Three or four months ago it changed the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the House did not change the Government I would like hon. Members to say who did. Is it

wise, then, that we should abrogate our functions even for a fortnight at this time?

Mr. McKie: My hon. Friend has made great play with the point that we should not adjourn for a fortnight. Does he realise that since Munich —I speak from memory—there have been only four clear weeks during which this House has not been sitting, that is, since September, 1938?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I submit that different considerations apply in time of war to those which apply in times of peace. It is not a question of passing more legislation or of having anything great to do. But there are matters which require attention. There is one question, for instance, which has been mentioned in the course of this afternoon already, namely, that of old age pensions and war savings in which many hon. Members are interested. Another question is that of the treatment of refugees during the last two or three months—a question which concerns every Member of this House. I think the House of Commons ought to dissociate itself clearly, emphatically and unambiguously from any responsibility for the work of whatever Department is responsible for the terrible mistakes made in connection with the refugees. Personally, I am a great admirer of the Home Secretary and I think he has done great service to the State.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member had better get on to the question which, as I have said, is solely one of the date to which the House is to adjourn.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I refer to the question of the refugees, only as one which I wish to see ventilated before the House adjourns. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is to be discussed to-morrow."] I know the matter is to be raised to-morrow but I wish to state, as part of my argument in regard to the functions of this House, that I and a number of other hon. Members were continually writing to the Department on this matter and it was not until we raised the matter on the Floor of the House that we were able to get any attention paid to it.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Motion.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: This House, after all, is the voice of democracy and the


only bulwark of free speech and democratic freedom and of everything for which it has stood for generations. We have been told that vigilance is the price of liberty. That applies in war as well as in peace, and I suggest that the Mother of Parliaments should not adjourn for any indefinite period until the cause for which we stand is triumphantly vindicated.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Granville: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not know whether the running fire of commentary and enlightenment which came from hon. Members during my hon. Friend's speech is an exhibition of what I might call the Council of State. My hon. Friend has made a perfectly rational suggestion that this House should not adjourn while the Battle of Britain is in progress, but that we should meet next week and, as democratic representatives of the people, carry on the business of Parliament. I do not know whether I shall be subject to the sort of commentary from hon. Members to which my hon. Friend was subject, but it will not stop my speaking, and if I have to go on for two hours I shall say what I have to say. I hold the view that it is wrong for the House of Commons to adjourn. My hon. Friend referred to this Assembly as the voice of democracy, the only free Parliament left in Europe. If we had adjourned the House as we did a year ago, in early August, we should never have heard the historical speech that we had from the Prime Minister in public Session yesterday. There has been too much secret Session and a tendency to place upon the Executive too great a responsibility.
I am told that the reason for the Adjournment is to enable Miinsters to have more time to spend in their Departments. I understand that point of view, but we should follow the example of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and munition workers. The latter have been working all hours to put Hurricanes and other aircraft in the sky, and 2,000 of our young pilots stood between us and invasion last week. We have appealed to the workers on the radio, Ministers of the Crown have appealed to them, and they have been asked to work all the hours imaginable with no holiday. If I have to choose

between saying that Ministers of the Crown should have 13 days to spend in their Departments and should not come here for three days a week to keep in touch with the House of Commons, and giving an example to the people of the country by remaining in Session, I would choose asking Ministers to work extra time and asking the House to set an example. I would like to quote some words because they are better than those I could choose:
It may sound rather a vain thing for a Member of Parliament to say, but it seems to me that this House is a recognised addition to the defences of Great Britain, that we are safer when the House is sitting, and that the power and will of this House count very much, and, properly commanded, will reinforce the power of His Majesty's Government. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be regrettable if we, as it were, go out of action just at a time when the situation is becoming most acute."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd Aug, 1939; col. 2439, Vol. 350.]
These were the words uttered by the Prime Minister from this corner bench on 2nd August last year. That was before we were in the war. We are in the war now, and the people are solid and determined to go forward and fight the way to victory. Would it not be a better thing if we, the democratic representatives of this great country, instead of going off to our constituencies or to a holiday, remained here in Session, setting an example to the people and showing that we have learned the lesson of what happened to the French Parliament? If Paul Reynaud had been able to call the French Parliament together France might have still been fighting—but here we are supporting a Government which is determined to prosecute the war to victory. It is the duty of this democratic Assembly to give the Government all the support it can, but it is our job to stay here in the political front line of the war as an example to the democracies of the world.

4.21 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has omitted to notice that power has already been taken to bring back this House at any time if it should be needed. The logic of his argument was that we should never leave this Chamber at all and should continue sitting. Every argument he applied to the Motion that we should adjourn for a fortnight would apply to his Amendment that we should adjourn for a week, because, as he


pointed out, something might happen during that week or fortnight. We have taken power that the House should be recalled if necessary, but it is not true that, even in war-time, people do their best work by working continuously without any holidays whatever. That is not true of the soldiers, sailors and airmen, it is not true of the workers in the factories, and it is not true of Parliament. It is particularly not true of Parliament because Members have to keep in touch with their constituencies and get knowledge of what they are thinking and what is happening in the country. At this time, considering the stress through which Parliament has been, an adjournment for a fortnight with power to recall in a shorter time is reasonable and will, I am sure, commend itself to hon. Members.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I support what has been said by the Lord Privy Seal. I have no doubt at all that Parliament will do well to separate for a fortnight. There was one day last week when there was more rude temper about this House than there should be, just because we are tired of looking at one another. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite to me feels, but if it is the same as I feel sitting opposite to him—[Laughter.] I suppose we all have similar feelings about different people in all parts of the House. There are 101 things I want to get done. Since the outbreak of war I have never missed one of the weeks during which the House has been sitting, except once when I was at a by-election. I have now 101 things I want to do which I cannot do in the odd three or four days of the week-end. I am sure that other hon. Members are in the same position. I want a week in which to do nothing in which I can weigh up the whole situation away from this atmosphere, away from everybody with whom I am normally associated. If hon. Members are suspicious of the Government bringing off the French trick, surely that is not the best point of view for Government supporters to put up. I am in opposition to the Government and have declared my opposition to them.

Mr. Granville: But the hon. Member is supporting the Government now.

Mr. Maxton: I am speaking now about the issue before the House. The Government happen to have proposed it and I happen to agree with it. I opposed the appointment of this Government and voted against it, but I think that I can trust them for a fortnight. The Lord Privy Seal assures us that the Government will call us back if they feel the need of us. What I have urged on several Adjournments, and I urge it again now, is that the House of Commons should have the right to call itself back and to call the Government back if we feel the need of doing so. I did not put a Motion on the Order Paper because it has always been thrown out by an overwhelming majority, but I want an Adjournment that puts it in the power of 50 or 60 back benchers, if they can get a proper requisition, to have the House recalled whether the Government want it or not. I shall support the Government on this Motion but I shall not be satisfied with this Adjournment business until the power of recall is put into the hands of back benchers.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I moved the Amendment because I heard a suggestion that when the House meets on 5th September it is likely to adjourn again for the whole of September. Can my right hon. Friend give me some assurance on that point?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Motion.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: We have been able to ventilate the matter, and in view of the discussion I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Thursday, 5th September.

Orders of the Day — ALLIED FORCES BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

4.28 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am glad the first Bill which I have to move in my present office is one that will commend itself to the approval of the House. In its main three Clauses it is really an expression of one of our war and peace aims. In his stirring review of the situation yesterday the Prime Minister said that although their countries had been overrun,
the Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Belgians are still in the field, sword in hand, recognised by Great Britain and the United States as the sole representative authorities and lawful Governments of their respective States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th August, 1940; col. 1168, Vol. 364.]
He added that we have also recognised in General de Gaulle not a sovereign Government, but an authority recognised as representing the feeling and faith of free Frenchmen outside occupied France. The object of the Bill is to enable those Governments to play the part which they desire to play in the war. They are not to be regarded as merely refugee Governments. Every one of them wishes to share in the strain and sacrifice of the war as well as in the fruits of victory. Every one of them in some measure commands the means to play its part in the war. Some of these Governments command forces belonging to all three Services, the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, some have forces belonging to only one or two of those Services, but all of them command forces of some kind. We might have sought to absorb these military elements into our own services so that they would fight under the British Flag—

Mr.Wedgwood: Hear, hear.

Sir E. Grigg: I am sure, in spite of my right hon. Friend's interjection, that the House generally would agree that that course would not have been consonant with the spirit and purposes of the great enterprise to which we are dedicated in this war. We are not fighting for British freedom alone, and therefore we are not fighting for a purely British victory. We do not wish to dominate the Governments that are allied with us, either now or hereafter. We wish them to be our honoured partners in this enterprise, not only in winning the war but in building up a better Europe after the war. It is in that spirit and as a symbol of that aim that the

Government is seeking, very gladly, to give legal sanction to the establishment of no less than six foreign Armies on British soil, to be trained under their own flags, under their own commanders, and under their own military law.

Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. Gentleman name the six?

Sir E. Grigg: Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France and Czecho Slovakia. The process is easy because the legal arrangements which are necessary for the purpose are, in point of fact, already in operation as between the free nations of the British Commonwealth. We have only to apply to each nation the legal arrangements already approved by this House in what is known as the Visiting Forces (Commonwealth) Act, under which the Dominion Governments control their own forces when they are in this country and we control ours in the Dominions. I am glad that that is so, for the parallel is a valuable one. In this matter, as in all matters, freedom is second nature to us, and we find it easy to share, just as easy as to share the air we breathe.
The provisions of the Bill are simple. I will briefly recapitulate them. Clause 1 confers the powers upon the authorities of the foreign Governments in this country. Sub-section (1) of this Clause confers them on the Sovereign Governments in this country which we have recognised as our Allies, and Sub-section (2) on the foreign authority which we have recognised as being in general control. Sub-section (3) deals with the powers of enforcement of these powers.

Mr. Wedgwood: Precisely what powers?

Sir E. Grigg: Powers of enforcement similar to those which exist in regard to Dominion forces in the Visiting Forces (Commonwealth) Act. This Sub-section provides the necessary machinery for enforcing the various foreign codes, and it also deals with the action which our civil authorities are to take in regard to the arrest of deserters, the power of billeting, etc. Clause 2 is a safeguarding Clause. It preserves in all essentials the jurisdiction of our own civil courts in respect of offences against the law of this country. When an offence is committed against the civil population of this country the matter comes under the jurisdiction


of our civil courts and will be dealt with under our own law.

Mr. Ballenger: Is it not the case that quite often-at any rate in regard to minor offences-one of our own soldiers is handed over to the military authorities, on the request of his commanding officer, to be dealt with under military law? Will the same procedure be followed in the case of foreigners?

Sir E. Grigg: In regard to major offences against our civil code, even our own soldiers are tried in civil courts, and here we are making special arrangements to see that offences against our civil law are treated in our own courts.

Mr. Bellenger: All of them?

Sir E. Grigg: All of them. Clause 3 provides for the contingency in which some very small foreign force or detail is serving as part of a larger force, and it provides for discipline in that case through mixed courts-martial on which both our own officers and officers of the foreign Power concerned will sit. Those are the three main Clauses of the Bill. Two questions arise which may be asked. The first and most pertinent one is this: Is the foreign military law to Which we are giving sanction in this country repugnant in any way to the principles of the law of this country? We have been into that question very carefully, and we find that these codes are very similar to our own.

Mr. Wedgwood: Including the French Foreign Legion code?

Sir E. Grigg: I refer to the codes which are dealt with under this Bill. I do not know to which particular code my right hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Wedgwood: My right hon. Friend knows that the French Foreign Legion has much stricter discipline and much more severe punishments than we should tolerate in the British Army.

Sir E. Grigg: The code to be introduced by General de Gaulle is, I understand, the code in general use in France —or the code which was in use before the capitulation. I hesitate to say what is the code of that fragment of the Foreign Legion which still exists, and make a reservation about that; but in regard to the bulk of his force, the ordinary military law which has prevailed in France is

to be in force. There may be differences between the military codes to which we are giving sanction in regard to military offences, that is to say offences solely within the scope of military life, and offences in which the civil population is concerned. There are two big differences in the Polish law. The Poles make death the penalty for desertion and for wounding to avoid service in the field. In our code the penalty is imprisonment for life. But that is a matter entirely between the Polish authority and its own nationals, and is not a matter, therefore, in which we should interfere. But when it comes to civil offences, that is to say offences in which the population of this country are concerned, there is also one considerable discrepancy. In the French code normally applied in France the death penalty is imposed for rape, and that is contrary to our code; but, as I have already explained, rape, being a crime against the civil population, would come under Clause 2 and would fall to be dealt with in our own courts under our own law. We are also introducing a special article into our agreements with the Powers concerned under which the jurisdiction of our own courts in all these matters is carefully preserved.
The other question that may be asked refers to the command. How will the command of these forces be provided for, in the course of operations, their disposition in this country, and so on? In principle, these foreign forces will be at all times under the British High Command in its character of the Allied High Command, but the forces will be used as far as possible as operational formations under the command of their own officers within that Higher British Command. Where necessary we are detailing British instructors to familiarise these forces with British material and British practice. The question of the command is also being dealt with in an article of the agreements which are to be signed.
I think that I have given a description of the main points in the Bill and I feel the House may very well be proud to pass it, because a new birth of freedom is implicit in it. It represents, I believe, the inmost aspirations of at least 100,000,000 human beings at present under the Nazi heel. Britain at this proud hour is no mere home for helpless refugees. Britain, on the contrary, is a cave of Aeolus in which are penned for


the time all the great liberating winds which through the centuries have swept the dark mists of oppression and barbarism from the life of human kind. This wind may be penned for a time, but not for long. I am confident that the day will come, brought nearer by this Bill, when this wind will sweep across the English Channel and the North Sea and drive out the foul miasma in which millions of our fellow human beings at this time are drawing every breath in misery and in pain.

Miss Rathbone: I should like to ask two questions. The first is how far the conscription laws of the country to which a man belongs will affect him. If a man has not been conscripted but would be conscripted under the law of his own country is he, while resident in this country, to be conscripted into this foreign force? Secondly, I should like to know whether there is any provision against racial or religious discrimination in these foreign forces? Would it be permissible for discriminations to be exercised against a national on the ground of his being a Jew or belonging to any particular racial or religious section?

Sir E. Grigg: In regard to the second question there is no racial discrimination in the Code which we apply here—none whatever. That question might arise in the administration of the Code, but it is not in the Code itself.

Mr. Bellenger: Is there any safeguard against that?

Sir E. Grigg: We have no reason to believe that anything that will be done under these codes will be contrary to the spirit of our own Code or of our practice in this country. The second point on which the hon. Lady asked me a question was whether, under the Bill, it would be possible for foreign authorities or Governments to conscript their nationals. The answer is "No." There is no such power in the Bill. I believe that there have been discussions on that point, but the point is not covered in the Bill; it lies entirely outside the Bill.

Miss Rathbone: That means that these are voluntary forces and that people are not compelled to serve in the national forces of their Governments?

Sir E. Grigg: I would point out that most of the troops are already serving, but there is no power to conscript those who are not.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The speech which has just been delivered by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War contained some very stirring passages and was very eloquent on the effects of the Bill. At the commencement of his speech, he devoted some time to what is clearly the main problem which has to be settled before any Bill like this can be brought before this House. There was the alternative of taking these foreign forces and just lumping them into the British Army, without giving them any special national identity of their own. If that had been done, the problems and difficulties which the Bill has to solve would not have arisen.
If one had been considering this issue merely from the point of view of administrative convenience, or even of practical efficiency, that would have been the plan with the greater number of advantages on its side, but, as the Minister very rightly pointed out, a very much larger issue had to be decided. I think the decision was right. It was difficult, but, in spite of the difficulties, it was essential that these foreign Governments, after being invited to come to this country, should have their own national armies here. These armies are the symbol of nationhood to millions of people and to their enslaved countrymen throughout Europe. I trust that, when the time arrives to which the Prime Minister pointed yesterday, and when there is a great resurgence in those countries, these armies will be the spearhead of the Forces of liberation and will see them through their present perils and trials. So, I accept the broad decision which the Government have made.
That being so, there is only one major problem which arises to be dealt with by the Bill, and it is that if these nations have their own armies and administration, it is not reasonable to say that they must have the British code of discipline and language, which they do not know, but must have their own codes, according to the decision which the Government have made. That is inevitable and right, The special difficulty with which we have to concern ourselves is whether these


codes should contain any provisions, especially in regard to penalties, which we could not tolerate being carried out on British soil, such as penalties involving corporal punishment. On this point I should like quite definite assurances.
I understand, in regard to the special matter of the French Foreign Legion, that its penalties are not enforced in the Metropolitan Army of France itself, and on French soil, but only in places like Morocco. It is only reasonable to ask General de Gaulle that the code which he carries out among the French Legion shall he the code of France and not that which is carried out elsewhere; it is only reasonable to ask that that should be made clear. So far as the other forces are concerned, it is well known that none of the codes contain provision for corporal punishment. The main questions which one asks have, I think, been answered, but I should like an assurance. I can see that these forces have codes different from our own, but I cannot say, on the whole, that they have stricter codes than ours, as can sometimes be seen by looking round their quarters.
I understand that, in these foreign countries, the conception that the Army and the military should be subject to civil jurisdiction is rare, whereas in this country that is an overriding conception in the whole of our Constitution. I understand —and I hope that I am right—that this point is fully safeguarded in Clause 2 and that the jurisdiction of the civil power over the Army for any offence committed against a civilian is just as strong in regard to foreign armies as it is with regard to British troops.
I believe there is some misunderstanding among these foreign Governments, at any rate some of them, with regard to one point to which I would call the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary. The hon. Lady asked whether the Bill permitted conscription to be introduced. If the Attorney-General is to reply to the Debate, this may be a point for him to deal with. The Joint Under-Secretary's reply was, most emphatically, "No." It is clear that the Bill contains no provision of that kind, and from the reply I take it that no French or Dutch man in this country can have conscription imposed upon him, either to-day or in the future, under the Bill. There is evidently some misapprehension on that point, and I would call the attention of the Attorney-

General to action which has been taken by the Dutch Government. We have had correspondence with Dutch subjects, and here is an official notice sent out by the Netherlands Ministry of Defence. I will read it. It was sent to Dutch subjects on 9th August. It states:
I hereby summon you for military service in the Netherlands army. You are requested to report on the 20th August, 1940, before 4.0 p.m.
Then follows a number of particulars, and later are these words:
He who does not comply with the above mentioned Regulations is guilty of an offence, and will be liable to punishment according to paragraph 120 of the Military Penal Code (Non-compliance with lawful summons for military service).
The document is signed by the Dutch Minister for Defence in this country. I am surprised at its being sent out. Clearly the Netherlands Government must be under a misapprehension as to their legal power. I am sure that they have no legal power to enforce this notice. The mere fact that a Dutchman is living in this country does not make him outside our law and put him inside Dutch law and under the Dutch Government. They have no power under British law, because the Military Service Act excludes foreigners living in this country.

Mr. Lewis: Is it desirable that able-bodied Dutchmen, for example, should be able to come here and shelter behind our Armed Forces, and be able entirely to escape from taking part in the struggle?

Mr. Lees-Smith: We cannot have foreign Governments sending out notices to nationals in this country asserting that they have a right to impose upon them obligations which are not within the law. Either the joint Under-Secretary's statement about the law is not correct or the Dutch Government are acting under a misapprehension. I should like to see that dilemma resolved. With regard to the question just put to me by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), the answer is "No," but I cannot at this moment approach or pronounce upon that problem at all. It is an issue which will have to be faced whether a young Frenchman or a Dutchman, who would certainly be a conscript in his own country, is to live here and carry on his ordinary life while British subjects of his own age are


going into the Army. The answer to the hon. Member is that if this action is to be taken it should not be done with these notices but under our ordinary law, which includes hardship tribunals, tribunals for conscientious objectors and all the other machinery.
The Bill has been discussed by my hon. Friends in full meeting this morning. If we can have the assurance for which I have asked, they will be prepared to assist the passage of the Bill. I think it will not be long before the scope of the Bill is widened, and Germans, Austrians and others, proved to be friends of this country and filled with hatred for the Nazi regime, will be allowed, if they wish, to take their part, not only in the Military Pioneer Corps, but in the combatant Forces which are fighting Hitler. That is to our interest at this moment. We are in a position in which equipment is lagging behind the supply of men, but in a few months we shall have more than we require, and there will be the problem of providing for the man-power which we need. In those circumstances, what could be more foolish than to reject the clamouring desire of Germans and Austrians to take their share in defeating the vile power which has broken their lives? The Under-Secretary ended his speech with a fine tribute to these forces, and I wish to endorse that, particularly at this moment, when we see the repulsive and infamous spectacle of men who have given up their country sentencing to death the men who are willing to fight for it. Let us be critical, but let us be generous, let us be considerate with these little foreign armies here; because, when their countries are saved, men in those countries generations hence will be proud to say that they are the descendants of the soldiers, the fighting men, of those little foreign armies which are now on British soil.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Denman: In welcoming this Bill, I want to raise only one point, on which I suggest the Bill does not go quite far enough. The Bill clearly emphasises a principle of great value, that human beings fight best when associated in units homogeneous in nationhood or in race. We are endeavouring to make the utmost use of all the good will that oppressed nations must feel towards us in our common contest, but there is one

body of people who are left out; that is, the Jews. I ask the Government to consider whether they are making the utmost use of the help that that race wishes to give. That race, after all, has the very maximum desire to see the defeat of Hitler. The Norwegians and the Dutch and the others of the six have lost their liberty, but they can, at worst, look forward to actual existence in a life of semislavery. The Jews have not even that outlook. For them, the victory of Germany and Italy in a great part of the globe means massacre and destruction. In not only Europe, but throughout the Western Hemisphere, too, you have a great potential source of power that can be more effectively used against the Germans and the Italians than is now the case. This Bill seems to envisage merely organisation by nations. For instance, a Polish Jew will come under the control of Polish officers as a part of a Polish unit. Is he likely to be as efficient a fighter under Polish officers as under officers of his own Jewish race? There is a great fund of potential strength here that we ought not to waste.
Of course, this problem is not merely an English problem; it is not merely a question of raising units in England. There are other places where Jewish forces can be organised. Have the Government considered this problem, and really determined to make the greatest use they can of the Jewish hatred of the Hitler and Mussolini régimes? Many of us have argued for years that the possibilities of Jewish strength have not been developed in our plans for organising our power in the Eastern Mediterranean. Whether more can be done at this moment in that regard, I do not know. The Government may not be able to say anything about that at present. But I ask them, in some future Bill if necessary, to expand the principle that we here accept so gladly, of creating units bound together by ties of nation or race, so that we may generate the maximum strength of the civilised world against the barbarians.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I am glad that the Government are taking steps to organise in one common unit the various Allied forces on our soil who are willing and anxious to play their part to the full in the struggle for liberty.


We have been rather too much inclined in recent months to say, in a way that is quite understandable, "We stand alone against the enemy." It rather grates on some of our Allied friends, who have, if not vast armies on our soil, great possessions, at any rate, in different parts of the world. We forget their feelings, and it would be better if we were to go out of our way to emphasise that we are indeed not alone; that we have the physical and spiritual support of great nations and forces in different parts of the world— a fact which is receiving recognition in the Measure now before us. The Minister said that in this Bill we were dealing with six different nations, with the forces of Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Norway, Holland and Belgium, and those forces of France that are recognised. We all know what splendid services they are capable of rendering, and have rendered already. I should like to make one reference to the visit that, at the invitation of the Polish Government, I with seven other Members of this House paid to the Polish troops in France at the beginning of May, just before the great offensive started. Going from East to West of France, we saw the Polish troops in training. They had already been through the fire once in Poland and the East, and were preparing to go in a second time— as they have been in a second time. Now those troops are now over here, ready to play their part a third time in resisting an invasion of this country, and, indeed, in advancing upon enemy territory, too. That typifies the spirit of the splendid Allies that we have, and full tribute should be paid to them for their gallantry, under far more difficult circumstances than we in this country have yet come up against.
It would be a useful thing if we had some kind of InterAllied Council, on which the representatives of the British Empire could sit alongside the representatives of the six States mentioned today. Even if it had not very wide powers, it would be a symbol of unified purpose. It would hold up to the world the ideal for which we are striving in common, the conduct of human affairs for the maintenance of peace and decent conditions in the world. I hope that, although the Government have not yet made up their mind to set up such a Council, they will listen to the arguments and the pressure which I know will be put upon them to advance in that direction and to set up,

as we did in the last war, an InterAllied Council of all those nations cooperating with us in any way. Although the Bill applies at present only to the limited number of States directly mentioned, there are others that may be expected to come in due course, in their particular spheres. What is the scope of this Measure? I believe that it refers only to action taken in the United Kingdom, but some of these forces may be operating on British Colonial territory. The Bill does not apply to them, does it?

Sir E. Grigg: It can be made to.

Mr. Mander: That is very important. It brings in other Allies. I hope and believe that it will not be very long before the Emperor Haile Selassie is once again in his Dominions, leading his people as part of an organised campaign, rendering us the greatest assistance in attacking the Italians and making their very small hold upon Ethiopia impossible to maintain. They are another Ally who may well come under this Measure in certain conditions, because they may be operating in Somaliland, Kenya, the Sudan and other territories around. Perhaps my hon. Friend, in replying, will confirm that it is contemplated that they will come under the Bill. Then there are the Albanians. At present they are confined to acting in their own country, where they are making things uncomfortable for the Italians; but they may operate outside. Then we have our definite Allies: Turkey, Egypt, Irak, who, no doubt for a very good reason, are not very active in the military sphere at present, but who are trusted Allies and who no doubt will be prepared in due course to play the part considered most suitable for them.
There are further friends who, in certain conditions, will presumably come under the terms of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) mentioned the case of the Germans and the Austrians. I entirely agree with him. I hope the time will soon come when we shall think it right to assemble those willing and wholehearted enemies of Hitler to play their part in organised military units. I should like to go still further. I believe that one of the finest things we am do in the way of friendship would be to make a wholehearted treaty of alliance with republican China. There are portions of the British Empire where there are large numbers of


Chinese subjects, who would then come within the terms of this Bill. I have mentioned 13 or 14 possible Allies who, in one way or another, might be assembled together, even at this early stage. I would like to ask a question about the French Foreign Legion, which has been already mentioned. How far is it proposed to bring it within the scope of the Bill, and is it intended, as has been asked, to confine it to French military law and not to the law which is generally operated inside the French Foreign Legion?
I entirely support what my hon. Friend said just now about our duty to make the fullest possible use of the contribution which the Jewish race can make at this moment of crisis. There is no reason why a Jewish army, formed not just from Palestine, but from all parts of the world where the Jews are animated by the desire to help in this great struggle, should not be encouraged to come forward and play their part as an ally of this country. Perhaps the Government can say whether they have anything of that kind in mind. I suppose that, if such an army were to arise in time, it certainly could come within the scope of this Bill if the British Government chose to recognise it, so that at any rate would be a step forward.
The question of compulsion has been mentioned. It is clear from what has been said that, if it is proposed at any stage to introduce an element of compulsory service in the case of foreigners on our soil, it would be done by a measure introduced expressly for that purpose, and I think that that is right. We ought to receive any suggestion of the kind with great sympathy. When we have compulsory universal service here, naturally, we cannot object to other foreigners on our soil being placed under the same law, if it is the desire of their Governments that that should be the case. Indeed, it would be much more natural for them to agree to anything of the kind, because, while we here are traditionally wedded to the voluntary system that we understand so well and have only abandoned under duress in the case of war, all those foreign countries whose names have been mentioned are entirely familiar with that compulsory system.
They do not understand the voluntary system; it has no very great meaning to them. It has been suggested that many of the Frenchmen over here who have not so far offered their services to General de Gaulle, if it were put to them as a matter of compulsory law, to which they are accustomed and which they understand, they would be far more willing to come in and give their services under conditions of that kind than if it were left to them, as it is now, and we said to them, "You can do just as you like; you can go back to France or stay here." They do not understand that sort of thing. They have never been brought up to it in their own country, and we ought to give very serious and sympathetic consideration to any attempt made by any of those Governments now in this country whose military units we recognise when they come and ask for compulsory powers to place their citizens over here inside the armed forces of their State. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would kindly make clear a point about which I am not quite clear. These units are being formed entirely of nationals of different States, and those nationals, if they so desire, can join any section of the British Army as an alternative. There are some who prefer one thing and some another. If there is any option, it ought to be as clearly expressed as possible.
I should also like some information about the system of pay and allowances. Has there been any attempt to systematise that and to arrange that there should be some relation between the pay and allowances given to British soldiers and other units and those in the various armies (hat we are now proposing to recognise? I understand that the pay in some of them is not upon a very high scale, and it may well be that that is a subject that ought to be reviewed, so that there should be no great disparity of terms between the forces in this country of the different Allies. I should be glad if some information could be given about that matter.
I have in the course of the years that have passed from time to time advocated in this House the formation of an international force, and it is, therefore, a matter of very great interest, and of some satisfaction to me, to feel that, under the disturbing events of this great war, such a force is now actually in being in this country, showing its practicability. The


small armies of different countries in their separate national units are all willingly coming in under one supreme command. That is an example of the spirit in which we are all going into this struggle together, and I hope that it may be a forecast of the sort of system which we may see in the world after the war, when mankind will feel that it is its duty to join together and insist upon the maintenance of peace from one end of the world to the other.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I would like, first of all, to make a protest, similar to that which I have ventured to make on some previous occasions recently, against the growing custom of taking Bills through all their stages in one day in this House. It is most unsatisfactory. It is not fair to Members of this House, and it is not calculated to lead to the best legislation. I cannot help thinking that a very little forethought on the part of those who arrange the business of the House could perfectly well result in our having, at any rate, a Second Reading of the Bill on one day, and the later stages on another. The Bill that is before us this afternoon is not a very long Bill, but it deals with a very novel subject. It is not easy for Members of the House to be sure precisely what the Government have in mind in introducing the Bill until they have heard the speech from the Minister who moves the Second Reading. Having heard that speech this afternoon, no Member has any opportunity now to think it over, to discuss it with other Members and to draft an Amendment, if he so wishes, and to give notice of that Amendment on the Order Paper to other Members of the House. That is now impossible. The only thing that any Member can do, if he suddenly thinks of something which he believes might improve the Bill, is to put down some hurried, illconsidered manuscript Amendment, and I submit that that is a very bad way of making legislation in this House.
With regard to the Bill itself, I appreciate that the Government have had some difficulty in deciding the best way to tackle the problem of the men of other nations in this country who are able and willing to fight in the Allied cause. I am a little doubtful whether, on the whole, the method chosen is the best. It

has, of course, the advantage, as was pointed out by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War, that it is calculated to appeal to the national spirit in the oppressed countries from which these nationals come, if they see, however small it may be, a nucleus of their own national army. I appreciate that that is a strong point for the Bill. Nevertheless, I should have thought that the practical advantages of some kind of foreign legion as part of the British Forces, in which all other nationals in this country, who wished to do so, could serve, would have been the better way of dealing with the problem. In practice, it will be a little difficult. We are only a small island, and now we are to have seven armies, seven navies, and, I presume, seven air forces, all under their own separate codes and all working in this island. It does seem a little difficult, and there is the further practical drawback to which attention was called by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). There is no provision in this Bill whereby the German or the Austrian, oppressed by the Nazis and coming to this country full of hatred for them and longing to fight against them, can be included. From those points of view it might perhaps have been better if the Government had elected to proceed by way of a special unit or units in our own Forces rather than providing facilities for those foreign forces to be raised to work with us. The Government have taken the other view, and I do not for a moment want to suggest that the matter is not one of considerable difficulty to discharge. They have taken the view that the better thing to do is to have these separate forces and to work them into our own system. Unfortunately, that is open, on the face of the Bill, to one very grave disadvantage. It leaves entirely untouched the most serious problem of all.
When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley was speaking, I ventured to interrupt him, because I understood that he was speaking for the Labour party, and I was anxious that his views should not be misunderstood. I gather that he and his party share my view that it is not reasonable that young men of military age should come here from Holland, Belgium and France, and should then sit down and say, "Now, you fight for us." That really is a posi


tion which is not reasonable and which ought not to be allowed to continue. I am sure that we are only too pleased to give asylum to women and children and helpless persons from another country, but if, in a war, young men, able and fit to fight, come to us for sanctuary, surely they ought to be willing to bear a share of the common burden. That is entirely shirked by this Bill; it is not touched at all. It is a very unfortunate circumstance because it is a problem which ought to be faced, and I should have thought that any legislation of this kind would have been the opportunity to face it. Curiously enough, although the whole problem of the right of asylum to an able-bodied young man at such a time, without any corresponding obligation to defend the country that gives him asylum, is not touched by the Bill, it would seem that there is some little uncertainty as to the position of an individual from a foreign country if the Government of that country now stationed here desire to compel him to serve in that particular force.
We are fortunate to have with us this afternoon both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, and I, personally, would be grateful if one of these two distinguished lawyers would answer this question: With regard to a French sailor who came to this country in a French warship, on what date does his leaving that warship, without the consent of his commanding officer, constitute desertion? What has happened? We said to these French crews, "You can stay with your ships if you like, or go back to France." No doubt some of those who first decided one way afterwards changed their minds. At what point of time does that action constitute desertion? I take it that in the first instance, when we took it upon ourselves to say what they should do, we should not allow French authorities to treat the fact that any man who had left his ship should be guilty of desertion. But it cannot go on for ever. Three months hence if some French sailor serving in a French ship gets tired of his job and does not like it, he clearly will not be entitled to say, "I am giving this up and going to Dover or Folkestone until some means can be found for me to go back to France." I would like one of the Law Officers of the Crown to tell me whether the original offer of the

Government was only for a fixed period of time or whether the passing of this Bill will affect it. It is a serious consideration.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley read to the House a rather surprising document, issued on behalf of the Dutch Government, which touches a similar point. He raised the question of whether the Dutch Government were entitled to send to Dutchmen in this country notices saying they were required to join their force in this country subject to certain penalties. There is no doubt that the question of individual rights may raise issues with regard, for example, to Habeas Corpus. I can imagine legal issues arising in the event of one of these foreign military or naval courts trying a man for a military offence and it being argued that he is a person they should not try. That seems to be inescapable if you are to have some men of foreign armies in this country. I think it desirable that they and this House know what is the position generally with regard to present units, and I take the French unit as being the most important in point of size—

Mr. Mander: No.

Mr. Lewis: Well then, one of the most important. If one of the Law Officers of the Crown is willing to satisfy my curiosity in the matter of the French sailors and will also give some information on the point on which the right hon. Member for Keighley touched, about the action of the Dutch Government, I am sure it will be very welcome to the House.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood: I think we should look at all these Bills which come along rather with an eye as to what will be thought of them in Germany and America, and I do not think this Bill will convey a useful impression in either of those countries. I dislike intensely, just as other speakers do, the exclusion of the Jews from Galicia from the Allies who are forming armies in this country. It is becoming obvious to people in America and Germany that we do not treat Jews, who, after all, have the greatest cause to fight Hitler, as being quite of the same standing as other nationals. Further, we in this House know we are fighting a war which is not one of the old national wars;


it is a war between two different religions, yet this is an attempt on the part of the War Office to get back to the old eighteenth and nineteenth century days of national wars. For the reasons that this is a reactionary attitude towards the real character of this war and the exclusion of Jews from the benefits of self-defence, coupled with their now being interned in this country, I look upon this Bill with grave doubts and suspicions. I hope we shall not accept the idea that we must pass it through all its stages today, because it is undoubtedly a difficult Bill to amend and will need careful scrutiny in order that there shall be proper amendment.
The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill told us it was to put our six Allies on the same basis as the Dominions. I hope that is so in every case, because men of the Dominions Armies in this country are paid a different rate from what the men of our Army are paid. Canadians and Australians and, I suppose, New Zealanders are paid a much higher rate and are paid by the Dominions taxpayers. Are all these new forces to be paid on the British scale, or is it possible, as in the case of the Dutch, that a higher scale will be paid, or a lower scale, as in the case of the old French Army? We ought to know, before military discipline is enforced upon these armies, the sort of scale they will he paid, and we ought to be able to decide for ourselves whether that scale will be satisfactory. I think that in the case of most of them payment is made from the accumulated funds of these countries, but it cannot be so in the case of the French, which is not a recognised Government. If we are to pay the French, I think we are entitled to decide what they are to be paid and see that there is no unfair discrimination made between our own men and those in the Allied Armies.
Before we pass this Bill I think we might also receive from the Under-Secretary of State for War an assurance that the people in these various national armies are really nationals of the State with which they are supposed to be serving. I suppose there is no doubt that the Dutch were all born as Dutchmen and no doubt about Norwegians and Belgians, but there is certainly grave doubt about the Polish and French

armies. The Polish army was formed in France, and the bulk of that army over here is the army that fought in France. That army was recruited in France more or less under duress. Refugees from Poland were given the alternative of internment or joining the army, with the result that a lot of Jewish refugees from Poland went into the army. They did not find themselves very welcome there, and certainly the feeling of Poles towards Jews can only be paralleled by the feelings of Germans towards Jews. They cannot be treated as Poles. I would like to know from the Under-Secretary what proportion of the rank and file of the Polish army are really Jewish refugees. If the number is considerable, and even if it is not, those people should have the option of being exempted from that army at the present time.

Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is his authority for saying that the Jews of Poland in any large number do not want to be regarded as Poles? Surely the whole of their complaint is that they are not treated as equal citizens and that it is their desire that they should be treated as equals.

Mr. Wedgwood: They are interned in this country because they are Jews and claim to be Poles and when they get put into the Polish army they prefer to be treated as Jews and not as Poles.

Mr. Lipson: Surely, that is not correct. The right hon. Gentleman has said that they are interned in this country because they are Jews, but is it not because they are Austrians or Germans?

Mr. Wedgwood: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the trouble is that all Poles were born in Galicia, and it depends exactly on what country is their birthplace. What is the nationality of a person born in Germany in 1918? It is extremely doubtful, and in France many people of doubtful nationality were included in the Polish army because they had the alternative of going to a concentration camp. If my hon. Friend will consult with some of these Polish Jews, he will find that they are extremely anxious about this new Polish force and are desperately afraid that there is to be conscription of all Polish subjects, whether Jews or otherwise, in this Polish force. What I am trying to do is to get a definite assurance that that will not


happen. The hon Gentleman said there would be no conscription, and he was faced with a demand from the Dutch Government that Dutch citizens should join.

Sir E. Grigg: I did not say anything of the kind—that there was no conscription. All I said was that they would not come under this Bill.

Mr. Wedgwood: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say it will require another Bill to be passed by this House? I do not think it will. The pressure that you bring to bear upon unfortunate nationals in this country—[Interruption] It is no use laughing at it. It is easy to do a thing if you are an executive Government without having any Act of Parliament to do it. All you have to do is to decline to renew a man's passport, and that was the method usually employed in the old days by the German Government. The power of rendering a man incapable of travelling is a serious one. It deprives him of a great many rights, and that is the screw most usually applied to get people to do what these European Governments desire to have done—deprivation of a passport. In any case it is desirable that we should find out from the Government how far nonnationals, in the sense of nonracial nationals, are included in the different national forces that we are setting up That applies even more to the French army. The French army includes a Foreign Legion.
I should like to give the House the recent history of the French Foreign Legion. They went to Narvik and did admirable service there. Unfortunately they were able to compare their own officers with British, and they came to the conclusion—I will not say unanimously—but all that I have come across were enthusiastic in their desire to get into the British Army and to get British officers over them. They gave various reasons, but the real reason is that the French officer is not of the same standing as the English. He has not the same ideas of treating his men well. He has not been trained in the same way. These people were sent over to France, they came back, disembarked and were put down near my constituency, where they remained for about a month. They were given the

option of either going back to France or of remaining in the Legion under French officers. A great many of them refused both those alternatives. The Legion was full of men who had fought in Spain. There were 200 Spaniards and a large number of Balkan people, Rumanians, Italian anti-Fascists and people who had formed the International Brigade. What were they to do when they were given the option of going back to France or remaining under French officers in the Foreign Legion? The discipline, the conditions and the punishments in the French Foreign Legion are very different from what they are in the British Army—very different from any that we could permit to go on in this country in any circumstances. We cannot have flogging in this country. It was abolished in 1876, and it is not coming back. These men who were in camp near my constituency made many friends in StokeonTrent. Many of them deserted, and they have been kept ever since by my constituents. They fought in Spain, in France and at Narvik. They have had plenty of experience of fighting. Now some of them are hiding from the police in my constituency. Others are interned because they would not go back to France. They are still loyal members of the Legion, but they are still in gaol. The Spaniards played the game much better. Not wishing to be interned, they mutinied and refused to stop in the Legion. They allegedly opted for France, but when they got to the port a great number of them refused to embark. I will not give the exact number, because it is not necessary. They saved themselves. They were interned, but they were admitted into the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Force and are doing good work teaching men in the British Army how to use bombs.
We want to be quite certain before we pass this Bill that we are not passing a Bill which will keep still interned, at our expense, indefinitely, a lot of men whose only crime is that they refused to go back to France and preferred to serve under British rather than French officers. I think that under this Bill anyone who deserts will be imprisoned by the civil power. Are we to keep these people in prison indefinitely when their only crime is that they wish to fight with the British Army—they have fought for the cause already—and when their fellows who


actually mutinied got away with it and are no longer interned and have joined up in the British Army? I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to try to get General de Gaulle to disclaim any authority over these men and to let them go. All he had to do was to say they should be quit of the Legion and he was glad to be quit of them. If he had got those men into the Pioneer Corps, they would be of some service to the country instead of simply a charge on the country. The matter is made more ironical when you think that these people, who are not French citizens —there are Belgians among them—are now being forced by the British Government into an army that they do not want to belong to. They want to belong to our Army instead. These are men of the Left, who have been doing good work for the cause. You will find also in the French army men of the Right. I want to know whether it is our money which is going to pay Prince von Starhemberg. We all know him. He is apparently now a French officer under General de Gaulle —a Jew baiter, commander of the Heimwehr against the workers of Vienna. He ran away when the fight came, he ran away again when Dolfuss was murdered and again at the Anschluss. He appealed to Hitler to use his services after the Anschluss and was indignantly refused. I think we may fairly ask that, if there is to be a French army, it should be composed of Frenchmen, that both the Left who are not French, and the Right who are not French, should be cleared out and that we should have what this Bill proposes, a national Army, not an Army of whom some Members on that side will doubt whether they are not too much to the Left and a good many on all sides will doubt whether they are not too much to the Right—whether Starhemberg is not too much to the Right to be fighting for the good old cause in the year 1940.
Let me bring the House back to the real, critical point about the Bill. We must not pass it today. We must get an assurance from the Poles that they will not use the powers of their Government to force into their army, as the only escape from internment, a large number of Jews who have learnt from bitter experience what it is to be under the Polish or the Nazi heel. Secondly, we should learn whether General de Gaulle is prepared to allow those who no longer wish to belong to his army, who are not French citizens by birth or by naturalisation, to

leave. Finally, we may well regret that we have stuck to this ideal of its being a national war when it is really a religious war.

Mr. McKie: The right hon. Gentleman says this is a religious war. Can he give us a little more enlightenment on that?

Mr. Wedgwood: I think the hon. Member knows that it is a religious war. I do not mean a war between Protestant and Catholic or between Christian and Jew, but a war between two ideals, the ideal of authority and the ideal of liberty. It is a war that has been going on throughout the centuries.

Mr. McKie: It need not necessarily be religious; it might be ethical.

Mr. Wedgwood: I do not understand ethics. This is a war between those who love individual liberty and those who love authority. It is a struggle which transcends all nationalities. All those who are on our side should be allowed to fight on our side. For these reasons I think we may accept the Bill if we can have this assurance from the French and from the Polish Government, but it will not be complete until we have the Jews of the world also able to fight on our side.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Goldie: I hesitate to intervene in this Debate, as I was not present when my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the Bill. The House has just listened to a typical speech by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), but I shall not follow him by making any remarks on the ethical and practical matters which he has so properly put before the House. I rise simply to ask for information. No hon. Member has a more profound respect than I for Parliamentary draftsmen, but I confess I have read and reread Clause 2 of the Bill, and frankly, although I realise it must be due to a total lack of knowledge of ordinary English, I do not understand a word of that Clause. The Clause begins in a harmless and innocuous manner. It states:
Nothing in the foregoing Section shall affect the jurisdiction of any civil court of the United Kingdom, or of any colony or territory to which that Section is extended, to try a member of any of the naval, military or air


forces mentioned in that Section for any act or omission constituting an offence against the law of the United Kingdom, or of that colony or territory, as the case may be.
Let me give the House a typical instance. Let us assume that a young officer in a motor car is guilty of a criminal act of omission, and a case of manslaughter arises. There can be no doubt that under the Clause he could be taken before a court of summary jurisdiction and ultimately proceeded against at Assizes or at the Central Criminal Court. Turning to Sub-section (3) of the Clause, one finds:
A court shall not have jurisdiction by virtue of the foregoing Section to try any person for any act or omission constituting an offence for which he has been acquitted or convicted by any such civil court as aforesaid.
So far the procedure is perfectly simple. If the person has been punished in a court of civil jurisdiction, a court formed under Sub-section (1) of this Clause cannot try him again. But what happens the other way round? For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the person is brought, in the first instance, not before a court of civil jurisdiction, but before one of the Army courts and is thereupon proceeded against under military law on a charge of manslaughter. If one looks at Sub-section (2), one finds:
If a person sentenced by a court exercising jurisdiction by virtue of the foregoing Section to punishment for an offence is afterwards tried by any such civil court as aforesaid in respect of any act or omission which constituted that offence, the civil court shall, in awarding punishment in respect of that act or omission, have regard to any punishment imposed on him by the said sentence.
Does this mean that when a man has been proceeded against by what I will call colloquially an Army court, and has been sentenced, he can then be hauled before a local police court and committed for trial on an indictment, and that His Majesty's Judge of Assize, in deciding what sentence he should pass, would have to take into consideration the sentence which had already been passed by court martial? It may be a question of my complete ignorance, but that is the way I read the Clause. One realises that in time of war, to use an old Norman phrase, "Autrefois convict" or "Autrefois acquit," as the case may be; goes by the board, but it seems to me that it is going very far indeed, if my interpretation of the Clause is right, to say that a man can be tried by one of these tribunals

and then brought before a civil court, and that he cannot say to the civil court, as he could in the opposite case, "You have no jurisdiction; I have already been punished and cannot be proceeded against," and that when he pleads, "I have already received a sentence for that," the civil court must say, "We will take into consideration the sentence of imprisonment you have already received and pass a concurrent sentence of imprisonment." It seems to me that the Clause is loosely worded, and I suggest, with the greatest respect to the Law Officers, that this is a case to which consideration might be given on the Committee stage.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I think the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) reinforces the view that has been expressed by all hon. Members, with the exception of two who have spoken in the Debate, namely, that the Government ought not to attempt to pass this Bill through all its stages today. I add my appeal to the Government that they should not attempt to do this. The Bill is not one of very great difficulty, but it is one of great novelty, and it is obvious, when the Clauses are examined, that there are several points which would benefit by consideration and review in Committee. I do not think the Committee stage would be a very long one, but I think there ought to be a Committee stage on a different day from that on which the Bill has been introduced and explained to the House. I suggest to the Government that nothing would be lost if they made that concession. No one will deny that the sooner this Bill is passed the better, but there is no such great urgency about it as to justify our passing it with only a cursory examination, for it is only a cursory examination that can be given to the detailed provisions of the Bill when we are asked to pass it through all its stages as soon as it is introduced.
I wish now to make one or two general observations. It was with a very great deal of pleasure that I observed that the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for War, in introducing the Bill, sounded a note very like the note sounded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). I think that is an instance


of the united feeling of this country in these days. There are very few occasions on which those two hon. Members find themselves in such complete agreement and give expression to sentiments that are really undistinguishable. It is true that my right hon. Friend thought that this Bill did not represent the best way of getting all the forces on our side in this war of ideas working with us, whereas the hon. Gentleman thought that this Bill was the best way of doing that very thing. But the important thing is that both of them now realise—my right hon. Friend has always realised it, but I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has—that this is a war of ideas, and that all of those on our side in this war ought to have an opportunity of helping us to win it. That is true not only of those whose age and physique enable them to offer military assistance, for there are other kinds of assistance that are equally valuable, such as technical assistance, the assistance which the ordinary maninthestreet, who has no special gifts, influence or wealth, renders to the common cause by leading a peaceful life under the law and adding to the general unity of the country and the uniformity of its efforts.
I do not wish to say anything which it would be more appropriate to say tomorrow, but I would observe that there are a great many people now in internment camps, and indeed in prison, all over the country who, if their ages and physique were different, would have been candidates for one or other of the forces legalised by this Bill, but who are not, because of age or physical disability. Are we to find some method of utilising their services in the way in which they can offer them, or are we, on the contrary, to continue with the policy which has been followed during the last month or two of treating these people in such a way that, because their place of birth happened by some unfortunate chance, or fortunate chance, to be within certain territorial, geographical, or political frontiers, everything else in their composition —their outlook, history, background, age, ideals, hopes—is to be disregarded, and for that reason they are to be treated as being, in the technical legal sense, enemy aliens, as though they really belonged to the other side in this war of ideas, when everybody knows that they do not belong to the other side, but to this side?
With regard to the method adopted in this Bill, I differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I think it is the right method. It is extremely valuable and helpful that we should treat these bodies—some of them recognised as governments, others not recognised as governments—as coordinating authorities with authority to organise, as representing the countries from which they come, those forces that are in alliance with us. There is one other matter to which I want to refer. We must not close our eyes to facts, even when they are unpleasant and embarrassing, and in what I am about to say, I do not wish to increase the awkwardness or the embarrassment; I mention the matter merely in order that there may be an opportunity of removing the awkwardness or embarrassment. Everybody knows that in Poland before the war there was a great deal of the most bitter antisemitism. That is a fact beyond any kind of dispute, and I state it purely as a fact. The mere fact that the world has been at war for nearly a year has not, regrettable as it may be, completely revolutionised the psychology of everybody in the world. People who have been brought up in a certain atmosphere still find their minds conditioned by that atmosphere. There are Polish forces in this country. I do not want to exaggerate and, for reasons which I am sure will be understood, I do not want to refer to details or incidents, but incidents have occurred, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am certain that the Polish Government in this country do not approve of them or want them. I happen to know that quite recently General Sikorski issued, in the standing orders to his forces, instructions designed to combat antisemitism, which would be ridiculous in Polish forces in this country at this time—

Mr. Wedgwood: Or at any other time.

Mr. Silverman: Yes, but it would be in an even higher degree wrong for this House to lend support, legislative, financial, or any other kind, to forces that were willingly encouraging that kind of thing and allowing it to persist. I am not saying that the Polish Government are doing it. I am sure they are doing all they can to restrain it. I hope that that order will have some effect, and that it will be something more than a pious


expression. The Government are in a position to make representations to those authorities where complaints can reasonably be made and to see that every step in their power is taken to prevent recurrence of undesirable incidents of this kind, and to promote the friendly comradeship which ought to exist between people fighting for the same purposes in the same army. We do not recognise in this country different grades of citizenship. There are no second-class citizens, and we ought not, in legislation, to give authority to other people who happen to be in this country to do things which, without this Bill, they could not do, unless we have some kind of assurance that they any more than we will not countenance any division in their ranks.
I would like the Joint Under-Secretary, if he feels able to do so, to say that the spirit in which I have approached this question is the spirit in which they look at it, and that they expect the Polish authorities will do all they can in that regard. It is not only the Polish authorities. Regrettable as it is, there is something on the Czech side, too, which needs a certain amount of care and attention. I am sure that these things will not be lost sight of. In drawing attention to these questions, I hope I have done it in a friendly fashion. It is certainly not my desire to embarrass anyone, personally or politically, and I hope that the result of this Bill, as soon as it is passed, will be to bring new strength and hope to all.

6.18 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somerville): A request has been made to me that I should deal with two specific points. Most of the Debate raises a question of policy with which my hon. Friend will deal but before he replies perhaps I may be allowed to answer the two points which have been raised. The first was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). His question, I am afraid, I cannot answer, because it really depends on facts which are partially known to him, but which I am afraid are not known to me. But the principle applicable is, I think, reasonably plain. He asked about the position of a man in the French navy who came into our waters on a French ship. He said, and I am not disputing that he was right, that

men in that position were given a certain option as to whether they went back to their own country, or whether they adhered to General de Gaulle and forces which it is contemplated will be covered by this Act. He asked on what date the departure from the ship would be desertion. The only answer I can give is that if the departure took place during the period when people were being expressly told they could be repatriated, clearly it would not be desertion, but if it took place after a clear adherence to General de Gaulle's forces, then it would be just as much desertion as it would be if one of our own sailors left his ship after he had solemnly undertaken the obligations which those in the Navy, Army and Air Force owe.
The second question was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie). He was troubled about Clause 2. He was quite happy about Subsection (1), which asserts the supremacy of the jurisdiction of the civil court. He found neither obscurity in the wording nor anything at all in the principle embodied in that Subsection. He was equally happy about Subsection (3), which provides that once a man has been tried for an offence by a civil court, a service court or court martial cannot try him over again. He has been dealt with once and for all. What he complained about was Subsection (2), which reproduces textually Section 162 (1) of the Army Act. Why is it in the Army Act, and why, being in the Army Act, is it in this Bill? was his question. The reason is, I think, fairly clear, although one hopes that the possible evil which it prevents is unlikely to occur or recur. What it says is that if a man has been tried by a courtmartial, he can be tried by a civil court for the same offence, but that if the civil court convicts him, when it comes to sentence him it must take into account any sentence which he has already served. That emphasises the supremacy of the civil jurisdiction over military jurisdiction. Suppose a military and a civil court were not on quite good terms, which, of course, they are. Suppose a man commits a theft, not in the barracks, but in the streets. That can be dealt with under military law. Suppose the military authorities said that they liked this man and that they would hustle him before a courtmartial where he would be dealt


with sympathetically and would be kept for only a month. But for this Subsection in the Bill it would have ousted civil jurisdiction.

Mr. Goldie: My memory of military law is not what it should be; but surely if you are convicted by a courtsmartial you can plead "Autrefois Convict" before a Civil Tribunal.

The Attorney-General: Never. That is one of the ways in which the superiority of the civil jurisdiction has always been affirmed. Although I quite agree that it is extremely unlikely to occur in our own courts-martial or with these Service courts, we did not think it right to omit from this Bill a provision embodied in the Army Act which asserts the superiority of civil jurisdiction. We thought it right to follow the words of the Army Act.

Mr. Lewis: The Attorney-General tells us that if a French sailor came over here in a French warship and he was offered option to return to France after the French ceased to fight, but he opted to adhere to General de Gaulle's forces, if such a man, after so adhering, left his ship without leave, he would be guilty of desertion. Do I understand that the French naval authorities will have the right, under this Bill after it becomes an Act, to try men in their forces for offences committed before this Bill was passed?

The Attorney-General: That is quite a different point. I have not had time to consider it, but, of course, the normal rule is that legislation cannot have retrospective effect unless it expressly so provides. The hon. Member has not put that point to me before, but prima facie I would say "No."

Mr. Wedgwood: Can the Attorney-General say something about the question of whether these Governments can enforce conscription?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will reply, no doubt, to that.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: There is one point that I wish to raise before the joint Under-Secretary replies, connected with

what has been said by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). The Joint Under-Secretary told us that the military law for some of these Allied countries confers the right of courts-martial to pass sentence of death in a number of cases where British courts-martial have no such right. I believe that the particular case referred to by the hon. Member for Colchester would be one of those cases. A French sailor or soldier might under French military law be considered to have deserted before this Bill was introduced, and might be tried under a French court and condemned and executed. I am sure that would not be the desire of the Joint Under-Secretary or the British authorities and we ought not to run any risk of a situation of that kind occurring.
There is another possible danger which might occur. It might be that during the long weary winter some of these people exiled from their own country for one reason or another might find themselves in a position in which they were induced or persuaded to leave their post, and for that they would be guilty of desertion. I do not want to minimise the gravity of such an offence. It would be very far from consistent with our traditions in such a case if we had the death sentence inflicted and carried out by an Allied force on British soil. I hope we may have an assurance on this point and that if possible some Amendment might be introduced on the Committee stage to safeguard the position. I think the most satisfactory way would be to secure that where a death sentence is illegal under British law for British subjects it should not be applied by these courts. We can at least ask that there should be an assurance from the Allied authorities that they would not use powers conferred by this Bill to carry out sentences of death in such cases. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will give us an assurance on that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) referred to cases of flogging. I am sure that that would be extremely repugnant to all British citizens, and I am certain that it would not be the desire of the Secretary of State that flogging should be inflicted by any Allied authority under the provisions of this Measure. On that point also we shall be grateful if we can have an assurance from the Under-Secretary.

6.30 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I hope that the House will allow me to speak again, since many points have been raised in the discussion. The Government cannot complain of the way in which this Bill has been received. Generally speaking, there is no question that the House supports the Government in the choice between the two main alternatives that have been discussed. Only one speech has been made against our choice. It is a happy thing that that is so, because the Governments concerned attach great importance to this Bill and to the recognition that it gives of their status and their right to choose the path which they wish to pursue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), for whose speech we are grateful, asked whether General de Gaulle would apply the code of the French Legion to that detail of the French Legion which is on British soil. The same question was asked by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and others. The answer is that the code which is applied to the French Legion in Morocco is never applied to the French Legion in France, and General de Gaulle, in any case, has no intention of applying to the Legion any code different from that which he applies to the whole of his force, which is the code applicable to the French Army on French soil. Hon. Members who feel anxiety may be satisfied upon that point.
I was asked about corporal punishment. The hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) particularly stressed that point. There is no provision for corporal punishment in any of these codes, and we have an assurance that it will not be applied. On the other hand, when it comes to the death penalty for desertion, there are only two cases in which Polish law differs from ours. I am bound to say I do not understand the position which the hon. Gentleman takes up. He is, I understand, a believer in liberty. He will agree that we are fighting for that principle in this war, and yet he is telling me that the Government should dictate what other Governments are to do to its own subjects in this country in a matter of this kind. Dictation is not liberty. I should be prepared to go and ask these Governments to agree, but to dictate to them would be absolutely foreign to the principle we are pursuing. We should not

dream of doing such a thing in regard to our own Dominions, and they know that very well. Why should we adopt a less civil method towards our foreign Allies? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but this is an important point of principle. I have often observed that some of the foremost upholders of liberty mean liberty to enforce their ideas upon other people and not to allow other people to hold their own ideas.

Mr. David Adams: That remark seems to me to be unjustified. We are as patriotic as other people.

Sir E. Grigg: I was not referring in particular to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will not think that I meant to include him.

Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend said he was willing to negotiate with the Allied authorities. May we take it that he will press this point upon them?

Sir E. Grigg: Our representatives have not thought this point of sufficient importance, but I will mention the matter to them.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the death penalty?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, I am referring to the death penalty for desertion and maiming to avoid service.

Sir Henry Fildes: Suppose a man changed his mind and wanted to leave. Would that be called desertion?

Sir E. Grigg: Desertion is a military crime in our Army, and it is the same in all armies. With regard to conscription, my right hon. Friend asked whether it was implicit in any way in this Bill. It is not. If compulsion is to be applied to the subjects of foreign nations in this country to join their forces, it must be done under separate legislation to be introduced later in this House.

Mr. Wedgwood: Cannot it be done indirectly by withholding men's passports?

Sir E. Grigg: It certainly cannot be done in that way, and we are not going to adopt that method in this matter. If it is asked why, if our own people are subject to compulsion, other people should not be so, we wish it to be done in no other way than in the way we use for our own people, with the same machinery and the same examinations


and exemptions. I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend said about giving the utmost opportunity we could to Germans and Austrians who are loyal to our cause to enter combatant forces on our behalf. There are great difficulties about that, but we recognise that some of them in noncombatant forces actually fought magnificently in France on lines of communication. There are great difficulties in sorting them out, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is no lack of sympathy with his point of view.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the case of the Dutch Government?

Sir E. Grigg: That notice is ultra vires so far as the law of this country is concerned. There is no legislation under which it can be enforced, but we have said to these Governments that if they wish to introduce compulsion on the same lines as we have introduced it, we would make no objection and would be prepared to introduce the necessary legislation. It is probably in anticipation of that that the Dutch Government acted, but there is at present no legal authority in existence which will enable us to give effect to the calling up of foreign subjects.

Mr. Lees-Smith: They may have sent out a notice which, as the Under-Secretary says, has no legal authority, but there are many of their subjects who are being misled and think that authority exists. I presume the attention of that Government will be called to the observations made on their action in this Debate and that until they have a proper Bill passed by this House they have no right to deceive their subjects as to the law of the land.

Sir E. Grigg: That will, of course, be done. I do not want to criticise a Government who are only anxious to get on and wish to enable their people to do what we are doing ourselves and to apply the same princple that we apply to our own people. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) asked, like many others, particularly the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), why no provision has been made for Jews. This Bill deals with Governments that are sovereign Governments, but the Jews have no Government of that kind. There is no Jewish Govern

ment or Jewish military code. There is no Jewish military system. Therefore, if the Jews are to play their part they must play it as part of some existing military organisation. This is what I understand they wish to do. I have the utmost sympathy with their desire to play their part in winning the war, and I know how heart and soul they are behind the Allied cause, but they can only do that as units and as parts of some other national force.

Mr. Denman: My real point was that separate Jewish units should be encouraged, other than national forces.

Sir E. Grigg: As far as I know, that is being done in Palestine, and Palestinian units are now being formed.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton was also warm in his commendation of the Bill. I have some sympathy with what he said about bringing the representatives of these Governments into consultation with the representatives of the Dominions. I think that something of that kind, something more regular and spectacular than exists, might come into existence in the course of the war, but it is the sort of thing that must be done soberly and advisedly. This Bill goes a long way as a demonstration of that principle. He also asked whether any new Ally could come in under this Bill. We hope to have reinforcements from many Allies, and any who wish to come under the terms of the Bill can do so.

Mr. Mander: The first Clause says:
Where any naval, military or air forces of any foreign Power allied with His Majesty are for the time being present in the United Kingdom or on board any of His Majesty's ships or aircraft, …
Does that apply to forces on Colonial territory?

Sir E. Grigg: I believe that all that is exactly the same as in the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill. My hon. Friend's point is covered by the proviso to Clause 1. My hon. Friend also asked whether any new Ally could come under the provisions of this Bill. I can give him that assurance. We hope for the reinforcement of new Allies during the war, and any who wish to come under the terms of the Bill will be able to do so. It is also the case that foreigners can join our forces. Foreigners belonging to allied friendly nations can do so, but we do not think it right to encourage them


to do so rather than join the forces of their own Governments. That question is wrapped up with the final point upon which I was asked for information, the systematising of pay and allowances. It would be easy to start competition in this matter. There are soldiers in this country who, if they were able to join the Canadian, Australian or New Zealand Forces, would be delighted to do so in view of the rates of pay. We are trying to get the scales systematised.

Mr. Wedgwood: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the pay of ordinary private soldiers in these six armies?

Sir E. Grigg: I am afraid that I cannot, but the subject of pay and allowances is under discussion, and the object is to prevent any great disparity. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) made a strong case for absorbing all these foreign fighting elements into our own Army rather than allowing them to form national forces of their own. I do not want to go into the military aspects of that question, and all I would say is that, after all, we are fighting for the freedom of these countries. We recognise their Governments as representative of free peoples, and if those Governments say that this is what they want who are we to deny it to them? Should we not be going against the very principle we are fighting for if we were to say, "No, much as you would like to have your own forces we deny you the right to do so"? We could not reasonably deny to a foreign Government on our soil the right which we have long conceded to the Dominions of the British Commonwealth. It would be a totally unreasonable line to take. Obviously it is their desire which has to guide us in this matter. It is part of the principle for which we are fighting. I think my right hon. Friend will not mind my saying this, that I have often observed a certain Prussian tinge in his idea of freedom, a general tendency to assume that British ideas should be forced on the rest of the world. The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the treatment of Jews in the Polish Army and elsewhere. He accused the War Office of ignoring the Jews and of being reactionary. The War Office is not a reactionary body in any way, I can assure him, and the accusations or the insinuations which he makes against the

Polish Commander-in-Chief are erroneous —I mean his insinuations about the way men are treated in the Polish Forces.

Mr. Wedgwood: I spoke about Prince Starhemberg. He is in the French Army.

Sir E. Grigg: I was coming later to Prince Starhemberg, but surely the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the treatment of Jews in the Polish army?

Mr. Wedgwood: The treatment of the Jews in the Polish army and in Poland.

Sir E. Grigg: That is what I am dealing with. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) made a speech the spirit of which I gladly acknowledge and, I must say, share entirely. I think what he said was absolutely fair and reasonable, and it would certainly be the spirit of our own approach to the whole of this problem. One of the phrases he used was an interesting phrase which does represent what is happening at the present time. He talked of "atmosphere conditioning the mind." I think that is happening at the present time. We have much reason to know that that method of approach is being followed in quarters where, perhaps, it has not been honoured very closely before. Certainly in regard to the Polish army we have no reason to do anything other than commend most warmly the line which the head of that army has taken. I will read to the House the terms of an order which was issued nearly three weeks ago by General Sikorski, the CommanderinChief of the Polish forces:
The success of our arms and the establishment of our future national existence requires the coordination of our efforts for our common aim. In particular, in the Army unity must be firmly established; honest brotherhood of arms must rule and all squabbles be eliminated. My principle is that a Pole who is now fighting for the common cause has thus given sufficient evidence that he is a Pole irrespective of his origin or religion. I strictly forbid to show to soldiers of Jewish faith any unfriendliness through contemptuous remarks or anything humiliating to human dignity. All such offences will be severely punished. This Order is to be read on parade to all soldiers.

Mr. Silverman: Everybody will recognise the extremely reasonable and even generous spirit of that order, but the effect of it is likely to be weakened when it is compared with such publications—I think the right hon. Gentleman will know what I mean—as we have had brought to our attention recently, Polish papers pub


lished in this country by people who are ostensibly members of General Sikorski's Government and, presumably, with the money which they have borrowed from us. They do not read at all like that order. I recognise that whereas one is a statement in a newspaper, the other is an order of the Commanderin-Chief, but we ought to be able to control the others too.

Sir E. Grigg: I feel there is much in what the hon. Member has said. I think I have dealt with all the points which have been raised, and I would now ask the House not only to give a Second Reading to this Bill but, in spite of the objections which I recognise to this course, to give us all the remaining stages of the Bill tonight. I do not think that request is unreasonable. It was announced that the Government would be forced to take this course a week ago. The Bill itself has been available for a very long time. It has been through another place, and Amendments could have been prepared. We are engaged in negotiating agreements with these different Sovereign Governments, and we shall not be able to complete them until we have the legal power which this Bill will confer. Actually, those Governments are not in proper command of their own forces until this Bill becomes law. There may at any moment come a crisis in which those forces would be used in the field, and it is desirable that questions of command and everything else should be firmly established. It is for that reason that we ask that all remaining stages of the Bill should be taken now.

6.55 p.m.

Sir H. Fildes: The point I had in mind when I made my objection was the position of the Norwegians whose whaling vessels were captured. The Norwegians were brought to this country. They would like to get home. Suppose a number of them had joined the British Navy but on second thoughts would prefer to get home. In such a case shooting or otherwise executing them would be a harsh measure. We have 1,300 French sailors in one camp. They want to get home instead of staying here, but we have seized their vessels. If they should give allegiance to the British Government and then suddenly get an opportunity to get home, the death pen

alty would appear to be rather severe in such a case. But I support the Bill, and if the Government would like to get it through all stages tonight, I should not oppose them.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Law applicable to allied and associated forces.)

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood: I beg to move, in page I, line 13, after "forces," to insert "who are their own nationals."

The Chairman: In calling upon the right hon. Gentleman to move this Amendment, which has only just been handed in, I think there is no doubt about its being in Order, but I must reserve my decision on that point.

Mr. Wedgwood: The object of this Amendment is to confine the exercise of military discipline to those persons in each of these national forces who are nationals of that nation; that is to say, it excludes from the power of control those people in the French Army who are not Frenchmen, those in the Polish Army who are not Poles, and those in the Belgian Army who are not Belgians. It leaves the power of the commanding officer over those nonnationals a purely directional power; he has no power of punishment. Therefore he will get rid of them, or he will be willing to get rid of them. The point arises in connection with the French Foreign Legion. It consists very largely of men who are not Frenchmen, but who have been either soldiers of fortune wandering about, exiles from foreign countries, and, very largely, of Jews. This being a Foreign Legion, we have a large number of Spaniards and other foreigners in it, practically all of them people who have fought in Spain in the International Brigade—the very best type of soldier. All of them have desired to get out of the Foreign Legion. Some of them got out


by mutiny, some by getting into the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Force, where they are doing useful work. But these men have committed the crime of desertion. That is to say, they cleared out of the Legion when it was in England, and they have been maintained in many cases by friends, or they have been interned by our Government. Quite a number of them, particularly of the anti-Fascist battalion, are Jews and Germans who have been exiled from Germany—not Communists, but people who only went to Spain to fight for the Republican Government.
I want the Committee to realise that if we pass the Bill as it stands, it means that these people who have been guilty of desertion can under this Bill be punished by death—these people whose only crime is the desire to join the British Army, to fight under British officers, to fight at any cost against the Germans. These people are now technically deserters. Therefore they are technically liable to punishment according to the laws of France dealing with desertion. So far as Poland is concerned, we know that desertion is a capital offence. I do not know whether it is in the Foreign Legion. But whatever is the punishment for desertion from the Foreign Legion, we are not now imposing it upon people who voluntarily and freely submit themselves to that form of discipline. We are not saying to these people, "You have the free option of joining the British Army or joining the Foreign Legion." They have had no option in the matter at all. They had to go into the Foreign Legion in order to live. We should be committing a crime if we passed this Bill today and handed these people over to whatever punishment they may be sentenced to without any appeal.
It is worse than that. Under this Bill a person sentenced to imprisonment for desertion passes over to the civil power. In the case of a man sentenced to imprisonment for life, we shall have to keep him at our own expense for the rest of his natural life. Could there be anything more stupid? All I am asking the Under-Secretary to do—surely he will have to do it some time—is to persuade General de Gaulle no longer to compel these people who do not want to be in the Foreign Legion to remain in the Foreign Legion. They are at present

technically members of the Foreign Legion. As long as they are deserters, hiding among friends in England or interned in various camps, they are still technically members of the Foreign Legion and therefore technically liable to all these pains and penalties. All we have to get is General de Gaulle's acceptance of the expulsion of these people from the Foreign Legion so that they can join up elsewhere. I cannot think why it should be refused. But every time I have approched the Secretary of State the reply has always been the same—"We cannot do anything to interfere with the internal arrangements of an Allied Power which is helping us."
That is all very well, but we are paying all the officers and all the men. The whole thing is financed by us. Surely we may stipulate that these people should be allowed to join the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps instead of being kept in prison as members of the French Foreign Legion. I move this Amendment because it would enable the French Foreign Legion to eject these men. The Amendment I move now in Subsection (1) applies to the Poles, but not to the French. The Amendment I propose to move next applies in similar manner to the French. It is on page 2, line 6, after the word "any," to insert "French nationals in the," so that Subsection (2) would read:
… to secure the discipline and internal administration of any French nationals in the forces so maintained.…
The addition of those words seems to meet the point exactly as far as I am concerned, and also to meet the cause of justice. It is not just that these men who have been forced into the Foreign Legion because they were refugees of the Spanish War, who have been the allies of the cause, should by the passing of this Bill be suddenly put in danger of their lives instead of being given the liberty of joining the British Army and fighting for the cause.

The Chairman: Before I put the Question I should like a little explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to his second Amendment. I take it that he was moving the two Amendments more or less at once, but I was not intending to call the second Amendment, because it seems to me to make nonsense. If he will read a little further, he will see that


apparently the effect of this Amendment would be to give authority to all these other Powers besides the French to deal with French nationals and French nationals only. Surely that cannot be his intention.

Mr. Wedgwood: That is the inconvenience of not having the Bill in print and being able to work out the Amendments. I think, Sir Dennis, you are mistaken. With great deference, I differ from you. Subsection (2) appears to apply to any foreign authority, but the only foreign authority that it applies to at present is the French. It is quite true that if we got the Abyssinians in on similar lines, it would apply to them, but at present Subsection (1) applies to the five Governments here and Subsection (2) to the one which is not a government, but a foreign authority.

The Chairman: I will put the first Amendment at any rate.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Mander: Would the Minister be good enough to deal with a point which I think he intended to mention but in fact did not, and that is the position of Prince Starhemberg? I understand that this gentleman is actually serving in General de Gaulle's army at the present time. How is it that he, undoubtedly a man of great courage, with his political record, is able so easily to find service in one of the Allied armies whereas large numbers of humble people, strongly antiNazi, who were driven out of Austria, have discovered that all we can do for them is to throw them into internment camps? Many of these people would be only too delighted to serve this country or their own country, along with Prince Starhemberg in the role which he is following at present. I do urge that no preference should be shown in these Allied armies to people of rank or position, and that service in the armies should be open to persons of the right character and courage, however obscure they may be, equally with the bestknown people.

7.12 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) intended to bring forward this Amendment, but I would like to speak on it as it affects the members of the French

Foreign Legion. There may be analogous cases in other forces. I am strongly in favour of the case which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, and I know a good deal about the circumstances in which, for example, Spaniards and members of the International Brigade were recruited for the French Foreign Legion. It was done under the most extraordinary duress. When they came back from Spain, whether they were Spaniards or members of the International Brigade, they were put into concentration camps, where they were under military guard in drastic conditions. This was particularly the case with members of the International Brigade who were not Spaniards—who themselves were treated harshly enough—and the discipline was severer than in an English convict prison. They were surrounded by electrified barbed wire. They could not go out and they had no furniture of any kind.
It was under these conditions that many of these men consented to enlist in the French Foreign Legion; so that one cannot say that they are like ordinary conscripts. It cannot be right to say that men who entered the Foreign Legion in those circumstances—we are told that they fought very bravely at Narvik—should be subject to the death penalty because they do not wish to remain in the Legion. On this point, I do not wholly agree with the mover of the Amendment. I do not want the heads of the French Foreign Legion or of analogous bodies to be compelled or strongly induced to turn out foreigners. In many cases the very best thing that could happen would be that the foreigners should enlist voluntarily in the Legion, especially the International Brigaders. I suggest that the Amendment should take a slightly different form and provide that the powers should refer only to nationals, of other States, if the nationals of other States join the Force concerned after the passage of the Bill. That would mean that the International Brigaders or Spaniards would be exempt from the penalties for desertion, and that there would be an inducement to turn them out. These men would have to be induced voluntarily to rejoin, and they would then be subject to the Clauses of the Bill. Is that not a reasonable arrangement? They would then be in the same position as any other foreigners and subject to the same discipline. It is not fair


to compel people who have escaped from a life that is worse than death to join a foreign Force, and then shoot them because they attempt to escape from it. Now they have come to a free country, and they do not want to remain in the Foreign Legion. If they voluntarily rejoin they should, of course, be compelled to stay in afterwards, and be subject to all the penalties. Is that point clear? Will my right hon. and learned Friend think it over and see whether something can be done?

7.17 p.m.

The Attorney-General: There are two main points to be dealt with. One is the point of general principle embodied in the Amendment, and the other concerns details which the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have in mind. I will say a word first upon the general principle. It is interesting that this Amendment should have come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), who is always pressing my hon. Friend to give greater facilities to friendly aliens, and, indeed, friendly enemy aliens, to enlist in our Forces. We have the right of taking aliens into our Forces and of subjecting them to our discipline, but that is a right which, by this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman denies to our Allies, who have their Forces in this country and who are anxious to help us. I do not think it would be practical politics or fair, or indeed possible, to insert into the Bill a restriction—for that is what it is—upon foreign Governments allied to us, whose Forces are here, in order to preclude them from exercising any discipline over those who are lawfully in their Forces. On the question of principle, therefore, I do not think the Committee can possibly accept the Amendment. The principle of the Bill of allowing the Forces of a foreign Government to be under their own discipline is a principle recognised by international law and one which the British Expeditionary Force enjoyed to the full in France during the last war.
Now let us turn to the individual matters which the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have in mind. It is pointed out that men were originally driven to join the Foreign Legion by the coercion of circumstances; let me put it that way. They had no option, and it

was, in effect, duress which led them to join the Legion. Let us assume that. I suppose that being in the French Foreign Legion, those men who came to this country with French troops, or with our own troops when they were evacuated, had never undertaken to serve in General de Gaulle's Force. Then nothing in this Bill can make them liable for desertion. The only powers that this Bill will confer on General de Gaulle will be powers over persons who have voluntarily joined his Force.

Mr. Wedgwood: Oh, nonsense.

The Attorney-General: Well, I am telling the right hon. Gentleman what the Bill means. It is perfectly simple. It is only in the case of those French soldiers who have on a voluntary basis—

Mr. Wedgwood: May I explain to the Committee that the option given to these men was to return to France or stop in the Legion? You cannot call that voluntarily opting for the Legion.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke, I thought, of the circumstances in which they originally joined the Legion at the time of the Spanish war. Now here, as I understand, they have undertaken to serve in General de Gaulle's force. The right hon. Gentleman says that it was unfair to say to them, "Will you join General de Gaulle's force or be repatriated?

Mr. Wedgwood: They were not Frenchmen. They were given the option of going back to France, which meant going back to be shot, or being in General de Gaulle's force.

The Attorney-General: I understand that, these men having exercised the option to join General de Gaulle's force, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that was not a fair option, and they have deserted. I hope I have satisfied the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is one which we could not possibly accept —excluding altogether the powers conferred by this Bill over persons who may be lawfully in these armies, but are not nationals of the country. The men with whom the right hon. Gentleman is concerned obviously are a very special case. I am only taking the facts as the right hon. Gentleman states them; there may be room for differences of opinion with


regard to the facts. But we are concerned with this Bill, and I do not see how this Bill can have retrospective effect enabling people to be punished for what they have done in the past. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government ought to take steps to enable these men to be enlisted in our Forces, instead of in General de Gaulle's. I am not saying whether he is right or wrong. He can press his point on the Government, but it really does not form any foundation for amending this Bill or introducing into it words which it would be quite wrong to introduce.

7 25 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood: I am afraid this is the only opportunity we have of securing justice for these men. I hoped when the right hon. and learned Gentleman got up he was going to say that these men in the International Brigade, who are now in prison because they refused to go to General de Gaulle and also refused to go back to France, would be set free—free from General de Gaulle's control. They can never be of any service to General de Gaulle. They never opted for him; all they did was to refuse to opt to go back to Pétain's France, and when the only alternative open to them was the Legion they preferred to desert. They are now in StokeonTrent, dozens of them, being looked after by my supporters. They have never been proceeded against for desertion yet, and I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that they will not be proceeded against for desertion. Am I right?

The Attorney-General: I cannot add to what I said. I do not know the exact facts, but I said I did not see how under this Bill people can be proceeded against in respect of acts committed before the Bill was passed.

Mr. Wedgwood: That may be some consolation to those who have deserted from the Legion, but it does not affect the hundreds who are now interned, although their offence was committed before this Bill is passed. They have been interned by us indefinitely and their release depends entirely upon General de Gaulle himself, who says that he is no longer interested in them and has refused. He is keeping a whip hand over these people. I am certain that we, and particularly the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Ministerial Bench, owe some

thing to these men in the International Brigade who fought for us and who, after being confined in the hell on earth of a camp in France, were driven into enlisting in the French Foreign Legion, and have been hiding in France and in Norway. They are now rotting in prison simply because the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench cannot get up and say, "I will speak to General de Gaulle and get him to release them."

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: My information about the men in this country who were in the French force in Norway is rather different from the right hon. Gentleman's. There are many of them who conducted themselves very well at Narvik and who are now in the British Pioneer Corps and, I believe, doing very well. But this whole question does seem to me to point to a very big gap which exists in this Bill at the present time. It may be that the Amendment does not meet the case. There are other nationalities which do not fit in well to any of the existing organised armies—armies organised under Governments recognised in this country—and they can join the British Army. The particular group that I know have done so, but that is not altogether satisfactory, because what they are expected to join is the Pioneer Corps, which until recently has not been armed and is still regarded as something rather like the Labour Corps of the last war. I do not want to accentuate that, because I know it is the desire of those who organised the force that they should not be considered as being like the Labour Corps of the last war. But they are not armed, even now, as fully as many of our own troops, and there is a slight slur on those who join this Corps. [Interruption.] You would not expect many Americans who want to fight for democracy and freedom in Europe to flock from America to join this Corps. It seems to me that the difficulty about the Spaniards who have been in the French Foreign Legion reveals a gap in this Bill, which I hope the Government will find administrative or other means of filling up. Perhaps they could have an organisation which Americans or any other nationals could join, to enable them to fight for the causes which they hold as dear as we do. If some corps other than the Pioneer Corps is provided, or if the status of the Pioneer Corps is raised, we


can find many foreigners who will willingly join our cause.

7.32 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I think the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) when he talks about a gap, misunderstands the purpose of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to give assistance to sovereign Governments already in this territory. It has nothing to do with action which we choose to take in regard to our own Forces. If we wanted to form a Foreign Legion we should come to the House to obtain the necessary powers. In order to extend our jurisdiction over foreign nationals in this area we should require some legislation, but it would be different legislation from this. I agree that there are in this country some thousands of more or less unattached foreigners who are most anxious to serve our cause, and we in the War Office are anxious to have their services, particularly in the case of those who have had some training already. The reason we are not pressing to obtain those services at the present moment is the very good reason, which I think I have mentioned in this House before, that we want to equip our own men first. We are having some difficulty in equipping our own Army. It is no good enlisting foreigners if it means denying equipment to the Home Guard.

Mr. Roberts: Might we have a definite understanding that when sufficient equipment is available these foreigners who wish to serve will be provided with an organisation?

Sir E. Grigg: Of course, I am not in a position to give that undertaking on behalf of the Government, but I can say that that will be very sympathetically considered. I come to the right hon. Gentleman's point about the Foreign Legion, which was, I understand, that the option given to these men was not a real option. I do not know what the facts are.

Mr. Wedgwood: I can give you the facts.

Sir E. Grigg: The right hon. Gentleman always knows the facts, but I am not prepared to accept his statements.

Mr. Wedgwood: That is not fair. I gave the hon. Gentleman the facts two

months ago. He had them all in writing.

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, but inquiries showed that many of the statements were not facts.

Mr. Wedgwood: And you refused to show me the report.

Sir E. Grigg: The facts are much less simple than may be realised. When this Bill is passed the conditions under which soldiers serve in General de Gaulle's forces will have to be agreed between the British Government and General de Gaulle. We are certainly prepared to go most carefully into the question of the conditions which are to be enforced under this Bill. I have no hesitation in saying that General de Gaulle himself is most anxious that these conditions should be reasonable. I have found nothing in his attitude or his conduct to justify the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman levelled against him. The spirit in which he approaches these things is very much our spirit. I want to say something about Prince Stahremberg. I apologise for not saying anything about the case before. I am not in a position to make any statement upon the membership of a force that has no legal status. It can be joined like any other club, since this is a free country. But when these forces have some legal status, then will he the moment to raise questions of this kind. I do not make any statement as to the facts, for I do not know what they are.

7.38 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I want to address my questions, if I may, to the Attorney-General. I want to make sure what the exact legal position will be under the Bill. Is it that if an International Brigader or a Spaniard has come to this country and is not willing to be repatriated or to join General de Gaulle's forces, and is now in prison, he does not come under this Bill, and cannot be claimed by General de Gaulle and penalised if General de Gaulle wants him to be? I think that is clear. But suppose men have come over who belong to the Foreign Legion, and they have already joined General de Gaulle, do they come under the provisions of this Bill as soon as it is law?

Sir E. Grigg: I have just explained that point. All these things are to be


settled by agreement when the Bill is passed. We have to agree with General dc Gaulle.

Miss Rathbone: Then this Bill does not apply automatically to everybody who is at present a member of General de Gaulle's forces?

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood: This is the first time in the whole of this Debate that we have heard that the Bill depends entirely upon agreement between the Secretary of State and the heads of the different forces. It is only in the case of General de Gaulle's forces that a subsequent arrangement can be made between you and them.

Sir E. Grigg: Under Subsection (2).

Mr. Wedgwood: I must deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr W. Roberts). The point about the Spanish is that when they got to the Employment Exchange they mutinied and refused to go. They were allowed to join the Pioneer Corps. I agree with the hon. Member that it would have been much better if they had joined the Regular Army. Once they were in the Pioneer Corps they were employed in giving certain instruction to our Home Guard. They were all right. They that mutinied were all right. It is the unfortunate ones that deserted. It is those people who are now in gaol and have deserted that I am anxious to safeguard from this laconic law under which the death penalty can be imposed for desertion, and indeed, whatever penalty the right hon. Gentleman and General de Gaulle can arrange between them. We ought to take every opportunity to stop that sort of thing from happening in England. Those men who fought in Spain and who have fought all over the world, deserve our protection. If we allow this Amendment to go through, we shall be handing them over without a word of hope from the hon. Gentleman that he will save them when it comes to the point of bargaining with General de Gaulle as to what the code of military law is to be. We shall be doing that, if we allow the hon. Gentleman to carry this Bill without telling us first that he will use his influence with General de Gaulle to save these men, not to vary the punishment from death to penal servitude, but to save them from being

punished at all, when they took the only course open to them of getting their freedom from the Foreign Legion. It is monstrous to deal more deadly with people who merely deserted than you would deal with people who mutinied. The Spaniards who mutinied are all right, but those unfortunate Germans, Italians, and Rumanians will be left in the lurch if we do not support them and if we do not get some promise from the hon. Gentleman.

7.45 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: The right hon. Gentleman has misread the situation as it exists. It is almost impossible to follow him in the variety of details that he has given. We are not legislating for some oppressive action. Let me explain the facts. In regard to what he called deserters from the Foreign Legion, he talks of their being imprisoned. These men have simply been interned because no one knows what else to do with them at the moment. They have not been interned at the instance of General de Gaulle, and I really must protest against what is being said against General de Gaulle. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to speak in that way.

Mr. Wedgwood: I have a letter.

Sir E. Grigg: General de Gaulle is entitled to courteous treatment in this House. He has been accused of a line of action which would certainly be reprehensible if he had taken it. What is done concerning socalled deserters is a matter for decision by the British Government. It is really much more our responsibility.

Mr. John Morgan: May I ask a straight question? Are these men, as far as we are led to understand, held at the discretion of the British Government and not of General de Gaulle?

Mr. Wedgwood: I have a letter in my pocket, and I will supply it to the hon. Gentleman in a few moments. It is from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (BrigadierGeneral Spears), who is liaison officer for General de Gaulle, saying that he is very sorry that General de Gaulle refused to release this man who was interned and, therefore, the Secretary of State could not allow him to join the Military Pioneer Corps. The hon. Gentleman told me that I am lying.

Mr. J. Morgan: Is that from the Government?

Mr. Wedgwood: No, from the liaison officer.

Amendment negatived.

7.47 P.m.

Mr. Harvey: I beg to move, in page line 16, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall confer on such courts the power to pass sentence of death, except for offences for which a sentence of death could be passed upon a British subject.
I want to raise a question of very great importance that came up on the Second Reading, and I hope that the Under-Secretary may be able to go further than he felt able to do at that point. I wish to get an Amendment into the framework of this Bill which will provide against the extension of the death penalty in those cases where it is not already legalised under British law. I also propose to move a similar addition to Subsection (2), if it is approved by the Committee. The Under-Secretary has said that it was not considered advisable to approach the Government of a foreign Power and ask that they should modify in any way their own laws and regulations in deference to British laws. On the other hand, we are here asked to modify British law for the benefit of a foreign Power. It is the British law that no Pole, or whoever he may be, can be executed ill this country except in accordance with the law of this land. We are now going to pass a Bill which will allow a Pole and certain other nationals to be executed for crimes which are not recognised as involving the capital offence by the law of this country. We are making a great alteration in the law of this country in deference to the wishes of a foreign Power, and it is not too much to ask the Under-Secretary of State, when he introduces a Bill of this kind, to give an assurance that these foreign Governments, friendly and Allied Governments, with whom we have the utmost sympathy, should not use the special powers entrusted to them in a way that is contrary to the practice of British law. That is a very reasonable promise to give. If we could without difficulty, and without any sense of loss of dignity on the part of the Power concerned, get an assurance of that kind from the Governments of the Allied Powers which are affected by this

Bill, it would make the greatest difference. Better than that would be that we should have in the framework of the Bill itself a provision that the British law should not be varied in this very important respect. We all hope that the occasion for it may never arise, but we should safeguard principles that are of the greatest import, not only to British subjects, but to those who have the privilege of living in this country.

7.52 p.m.

The Attorney-General: In the history of military codes different countries have no doubt found at different periods the necessity for grave or less grave penalties. There is a recent example in our own history. Until 1930 the offence of desertion or cowardice in the face of the enemy was punishable with death. In that year that was altered, and penal servitude for life was substituted. It is not, therefore, surprising that among all the different codes of ourselves and our Allies there are varieties of penalties, and in particular there are cases under foreign codes under which the death penalty can be inflicted and in which, under our code, it could not be inflicted. We like to think, perhaps rightly, that this is a matter on which we lead the world, but I think it would be wrong to seek in this Bill to dictate to foreign Governments what the penalties should be which they require for the discipline of their forces. Clearly, it would be right for us to say, "You shall not inflict on our soil any barbarous or uncivilised form of penalty or any penalty which we ourselves regard as barbarous or uncivilised." But when one remembers that desertion or cowardice in the face of the enemy was punishable by death under our own code as recently as 1930, and that we thought it necessary all through the last war to have that potential penalty, what right have we to say to other countries, because in the interval we have thought we can dispense with it, "You are to have the same code in this matter, in spite of the differences of outlook which exist between nations, as we have in 1940, which differs from the code we had in 1930 and may differ from our code of 1950"?
The hon. Gentleman said that in this Bill we were modifying the English law for the benefit of foreign Governments, but that is not the way a foreign Government looks at it, and not the way we look at it when we have our Forces in


foreign territory and ask for, and always get, complete permission to apply our own military code. It is a recognised principle of international law, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at Oppenheim's 5th edition of "International Law," chapter 4, dealing with armed forces on foreign territory, he will find that it says:
Whenever armed forces are on foreign territory in the service of their home State they are considered exterritorial and remain therefore under its jurisdiction. A crime committed on foreign territory by a member of these forces cannot be punished by the local civil or military authorities but only by the commanding officer of the forces or by other authorities of their home State.

Mr. Harvey: But that is surely quite contrary to the provisions of this Bill, which provide that a man can be punished by a civil authority?

The Attorney-General: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. The passage from which I was quoting goes on to point out:
This rule, however, applies only in case the crime is committed either within the place where the force is stationed, or in some place where the criminal was on duty.
I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that these foreign Governments might say, "You do not in this Bill go as far as international law," but in fact, although under Clause 2 we do claim complete jurisdiction over all offences, in practice it is not, of course, claimed where an offence is committed within the lines and the life or property of one of our own subjects is not involved. It may be right to say that the Bill does not, under international law, go as far as they might say it ought to go, but I do not think that it is right to look at this thing as a concession. International law is not law which applies to our courts, except where laid down by them or by legislation, but in our dealings with nations we base ourselves on international law and expect others to do so. Under the powers of this Bill we are not so much conferring a benefit as fulfilling an obligation under the international law.

Mr. Kirkwood: Are the commanders who are in control of these different foreign soldiers under the jurisdiction of British authorities, or will they act "on their own"?

The Attorney-General: As my hon. Friend explained in introducing the Measure, the purpose of this Bill is to enable their own military code to be

enforced by the forces of the various foreign Governments.

Mr. Kirkwood: You are asking us to empower these individuals to forgo restrictions that we have put on our own men. Are these foreign generals under the jurisdiction of British generals?

The Attorney-General: I think one has to distinguish between two things. One is strategy and the general conduct of the war, and the other is what is described in the Bill as internal administration and discipline. For the purpose of the enforcement of discipline and internal administration, these forces are "on their own." They can apply their own code, have their own courts and inflict their own penalties, just as our Expeditionary Force in France could when strategically it was under a French commander. For these reasons, while appreciating that hon. Members feel very strongly about the death penalty, it would he wrong and contrary to the recognised principles of comity between nations, on which this Bill is based, if we sought to dictate to these foreign countries that in the matter of the death penalty they must follow the precise provisions of our code in this year 1940.

8.2 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I think my hon. Friend has made a very substantial point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has very fairly put the position under international law, and in normal circumstances he would be fundamentally right and he would be very difficult to answer. Obviously, when our Armies are fighting on the Continent alongside each other, the French army is governed by French law and the English by English law. But we are faced with very peculiar circumstances. The fact that we have had to introduce a Bill of this character shows how peculiar the circumstances are. They are not normal, and there are very few precedents in history for similar circumstances. Countries find their territory overrun, and we are glad to see them reforming their armies in our country. I cannot imagine an incident arising where it would be necessary in this country for one of these foreign armies organised and raised in our own country to have to exercise the death penalty. It would be entirely unsatisfactory to us, and against the spirit of


this country, if the death penalty was carried out in a kind of case where it would not be carried out under our law. The point might be considered perhaps in another place. I know that the time factor is an important one, but it is a very real point, which ought to be faced. I have no doubt that by negotiation and agreement probably the armies concerned would accept in principle that, while they are in this country, they should not carry out the death penalty in cases where it would not be carried out in our Army under our law.

8.5 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: I suggest that we are in danger of getting in a very difficult position over the Bill, because, while the Attorney-General's reply is a perfectly understandable one, it is based on a hypothetical situation which in fact does not exist. The foreign governments that he talked about are not de facto Governments on any territory of their own. They are societies or assemblies of friendly foreigners temporarily domiciled in this country. They are in no way the properly constituted Government of the country which they represent. They are no longer amenable to the Constitution which appointed them, and, as time goes on, circumstances may arise within some of these units in which the authority of the present régime may be disputed. On what Constitution can they fall back to maintain their authority? It seems to me an indefensible position. The analogy between our Army in a foreign country and these regiments in this country is in no way convincing. The commanders of the British Army in a foreign country are at least amenable to the properly constituted British Government. The commanders of these foreign forces in this country are not amenable to the properly constituted Governments of the countries from which they come.

Sir E. Grigg: My hon. Friend is referring to sovereign Governments in a way which is disparaging. They are properly constituted Governments, and they have been recognised as such. In that case, from the point of view of this House they are properly constituted Governments.

Sir J. Nall: I do not wish to be disparaging. We welcome them here, and we are glad that they have been able to

come here, but in fact they are no longer amenable to the Constitution which appointed them, and certainly not all of them are even a quorum of the Government which existed at the time their countries were overrun. The extreme penalties which they may be allowed to inflict should in some way either be correlated to the law of this country or be subject to some appeal while the contingents are here.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I support the plea that further consideration should be given to this very vital matter. The Amendments which have been submitted and the manner in which they have been discussed indicate the very great disability under which the Committee is placed in having Amendments submitted viva voce instead of being on the Paper. I feel that we are displaying in this matter an overweening consideration for the small combatant armies which are domiciled in this country at the country's charge. We are asked to go outside our own law to oblige a relatively small section of the Fighting Forces, and for this small section, who will be virtually under the control and command of British leaders in the Forces, we are asked to make this great departure from the law of the land. The very fact that for 10 years the abolition of the death penalty in this connection has remained unchallenged in this country shows that the change brought about is regarded as having been fitting and proper. Surely, we have here an opportunity for extending to these small combatant armies a more humane outlook with regard to the treatment of the units of which they are composed. It is revolting to the mind of Britain that the death penalty should be inflicted for what might be almost obligatory desertion in certain circumstances, and inflicted with the consent of this House. That is the situation. We are asked to confer upon the leaders of these small combatant armies the power to inflict the death penalty in Great Britain, a penalty which we abrogated 10 years ago. I hope the Government will see their way to meet the views—it may be the too mild views—of persons like those who have moved the Amendment, and introduce into the code of the foreign armies serving on our soil a more humane outlook and one more in harmony with what we believe to he the spirit of the time in which we live.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I feel that in handing over to the representatives of foreign Governments in this country the power to inflict the death penalty in cases where British law does not permit it, we should be doing something about which a very responsible body of public opinion outside the Committee would be very concerned. I can conceive also that if in practice it were necessary for this death penalty to be exercised in cases in which public opinion would not approve of such acts, public opinion would be very considerably shocked. Account ought to be taken of that point of view. The Attorney-General has suggested that we have no right to say to foreign Governments that they shall not inflict the death penalty for desertion because up to 10 years ago we imposed a similar penalty. May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman there was a time when the law of this country allowed slavery, but once slavery had been abolished, we no longer allowed it to exist in this country or to be exercised by any other Power. As we have advanced to the point of view that the death penalty should not be inflicted in certain conditions, we ought to hesitate before allowing any other Power to exercise it with the authority of the House. Therefore, I hope that further consideration will be given to this matter, because I feel that a considerable body of public opinion would be very disturbed if we handed over this power to other Governments to exercise in conditions in which public opinion in this country is not prepared that it should be exercised.

8.14 p.m.

Sir Walter Smiles: I want to speak of what I have myself seen. Can anybody presume to say that we Br fishers understand foreigners better than do the foreigners themselves? Can we undertake to legislate for Dutchmen, Spaniards, or Frenchmen? The laws and regulations of these people have been passed by their own Parliaments. Let me tell the Committee of what I saw in Russia at the time of the Revolution. Before Kerensky came into power, the Russian army fought well day after day, and showed very great courage in face of the enemy. When Kerensky came into power, the death penalty was abolished. What happened then? We saw Russian soldiers bolt as hard as they

could from the enemy, even a mile from the front line. I do not say that was entirely the result of the abolition of the death penalty, but they had then a feeling of no confidence in their own established Government. While we have these forces who are to fight in something like a foreign legion for us, at any rate let us respect the laws made by their own Parliaments when they existed.

8.16 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I am sure the Committee will recognise that in this matter the spokesmen of the Government are in a very delicate position. We are responsible for our relations with certain sovereign Governments at present domiciled in this country. It is in accordance with our principles to show them the greatest consideration and respect, and all the more so, according to our code, because they are at this time in distress and to some extent dependent upon our good offices for their very life. That is a reason, not for disregarding them, but for giving them still higher respect. I am sure the Committee will agree with this. Therefore, it would be very wrong to go to these Governments and in any way try to impose our point of view upon them; but I have listened with interest and with a considerable measure of sympathy to what has been said in the course of this discussion, and I think I can undertake to see that what is obviously widely and strongly felt in the Committee is conveyed to the Governments concerned.
There is one other thing I want to say. Hon. Members are apt to discuss these things as if there were a real danger in all cases of this extreme penalty being imposed. Of course, that is never so. I think it may be said that in military practice the extreme penalty is very seldom imposed, even where it exists, unless necessity confronts the commander in the face of the enemy. When conditions ire otherwise, these sentences are always very greatly modified. Therefore, we are really discussing a thing which is not a reality, because whatever may be the law which we sanction, I am quite certain that no death penalty would ever be inflicted in this country. Nevertheless, the principle is important. I recognise the feeling which has been expressed in the Cornmittee, I have sympathy with it, and I will see that that feeling is not ignored.

Sir J. Nall: With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), may I say that if it is merely intended that these forces should continue to apply among themselves the law of their own country as it existed at the time when they were overrun, I should have no objection, but what I should object to would be the enactment of some new law.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Barr: I am sure the Committee is grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary for the statement he has just made and I am glad that he recognises, as we all ought to recognise, the great importance of this subject. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) said we should not seek to impose our own opinion on the Dutch and others; but we are not seeking to inflict on them what we think they should do on their own soil. The fact that they are on our own soil raises entirely new considerations. I wish to emphasise the importance of this whole subject. I remember what happened during the last war when I had to deal with several of these cases. As the Joint Under-Secretary said, the penalty was not very often inflicted. The death penalty could be inflicted in the case of a man sleeping at his post, or refusing to go over the top with the rest of the force, or for holding back. I dealt with a certain number of these cases and intervened with success. I think it was the sister of Earl Balfour, Lady Frances Balfour, who interested herself very much in this subject, and the death penalty was remitted frequently although sometimes it was carried out.
A strong feeling arose, and it was expressed in this House, and not least among men who had been serving in the Forces, against this penalty being carried out. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) put forward a Motion year after year, and year after year I took part, as did many others, in the discussions. We were revolted that our own people and our own serving men who had volunteered should be condemned to death because of some mental or physical weakness. We fought against it year after year and I remember the night on which the right hon. Gentleman, who is now Minister of Information, rose from his seat and supported us with some seven or eight Conservatives in the Lobby.

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not develop this into a general discussion on the death penalty, but will confine himself more to the Amendment.

Mr. Barr: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis. I only wish to emphasise the importance of this question, and to point out that it would be revolting to very many. I do not wish to make distinctions between parties, but I believe it will be revolting to general opinion in this country if the Dutch, or any other of those nations and organisations who have been named, inflict this penalty on our soil. I desire to say no more than that. The Committee will welcome the assurance of the Minister that he will make representations to those concerned. In the circumstances I believe it is the utmost we can expect.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Woods: I should like to have a further assurance from the Minister in regard to the statement he has made. Some of us would wish for a rather stronger assurance than he has given. It is true, as the Attorney-General said, that these Governments are our guests, and that it is up to us to extend the utmost hospitality in applying international law. But in regard to the Czech National Committee, the situation is not quite the same. We know that a number of Czech soldiers are in this country who at great peril to themselves and at their own expense, found asylum here in the hope of continuing the struggle against Nazi domination, not only for their own country but for Europe and the world. Among a certain number of these soldiers there are misgivings in regard to the constitution of their National Committee. They are prepared to serve in the British Army and are being denied the right to do so. They are under restraint of some kind; they are, technically, in the Czech Army, and under the supervision of British civil authorities. If this Bill goes through as it stands, we may be endangering the lives of some of these men if they insist on their desire to fight against Nazi Germany.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that if the Amendment is withdrawn, it will not be possible to bring compulsion on those men to accept the discipline of the Czech military authorities. We may owe something to the com


mittees and governments in this country, but we also owe something to the individuals who, relying on British virtue and integrity, have come here to place themselves at the disposal of the British Army to carry on the fight. There would be considerable feeling of indignation in this country if any legislation passed by this House made it possible for these men to be compelled to submit to discipline and possibly shot, merely because they are not satisfied that the Czech National Committee is 100 per cent. antiFascist, and in line with popular feeling in this country, on freedom and democracy for the people of their own country and Europe.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Viant: The Committee will appreciate the difficulty which confronts the Minister and his willingness to give certain assurances. I am not at all sure however that the Committee would be wise to allow the Bill to go through as it is, in spite of the willingness of the Minister to give those assurances. Should the Minister fail to persuade our Allies of the need for their acceptance of these conditions, we should be landed in the position that they would be able to impose these penalties. I want the Committee to appreciate what effect it will have on public opinion if we are willing to allow the Bill to go through in those circumstances. Without the acceptance of this Amendment we are going back on a decision made by this House after strenuous fights. I remember the night when we sat late for the purpose of getting such conditions as those demanded here inserted in our own military law. We should not be prepared to give over, too readily, conditions which are already embodied in our own military law.
We welcome the aid and support of those who have come to this country for the purpose of raising agents to wage war on the enemy, but there is another side of the picture. Are we willing to make all the concessions that are to be asked for in this regard? Are we not to be considered in this respect? As they are here and enjoying our hospitality, are we not entitled to ask that they should be prepared to fall into line with the laws of this land? I do not think we are asking too much in that regard. We are entitled to ask for it. The plea might be made that it is a question of urgency, but the

Government need not adjourn the House for a fortnight. There is a vital principle in this Bill which is wrong from our point of view, and the Committee should stand by the Amendment. If it does not, I anticipate that, should anything in the nature of capital punishment be carried out in this country, public opinion would be enraged. I see no reason why the Minister should not accept the Amendment and I hope that the Committee will stand by it as a matter of principle.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Harvey: It is evident that the Joint Under-Secretary appreciates the feeling of the Committee. He has spoken of his intention to put seriously before the authorities concerned the views that have been expressed this evening. I feel sure from what he said that, without in any way hurting their feelings or taking any steps which would appear to them to be putting undue pressure on them, he will succeed in getting them to meet the point of view that has been put so strongly this evening. In view of that and of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered, put, and agreed to.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Improvement of grass ways over fen-lands.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 17, after "district" insert:
or for the drainage of such fenland.

Mr. Deputy- Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Clause to which this Amendment relates provides for the making up of grass or soft roads into hard roads to enable the produce to be got off the land at times when vehicular traffic on these soft roads would otherwise be impossible. The Clause will apply only to certain limited areas in a few parts of the country. Since the Clause was drafted it has been found that, in addition to making up these roads, it is necessary in some cases to do drainage works as well. If these works were carried out by the drainage boards concerned, the cost would be recoverable from the owners—occppiers of the land by means of drainage rates. It would seem only reasonable, therefore, that if such drainage works are carried out at public expense, the cost should be recoverable from the owners subject to the limitation already contained in the Bill. The Amendment would enable this to be done.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: The other place have made important Amendments to the original Bill, and this Amendment itself hangs a little on the definition of "Fenland," a term which is to be re—defined later. It represents a considerable advance on what was proposed before, because the work on these roads involves culverts and bridges. I had hoped that the Minister would have indicated how this work is to be carried out by county war agricultural committees. In the original discussion on this matter we talked as though it referred to Cambridgeshire and one or two other areas, but now it means that every agricultural committee will be involved at some stage or other, and will be committed to substantial drainage works in some places. Round the coasts and in areas like Sedgemoor and so on there are marshes which have not been treated for drainage works as the Fen districts have been. I am concerned to know where the plant and equipment to carry out these works are to be obtained by the agricultural committees. Will they delegate their authority to highway boards

or how is the matter to be dealt with, now that the scope of the Bill has been so enlarged? I am concerned about that because I feel that the Bill is a much more substantial affair now than it was when it came before the House.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I can assure my hon. friend that the areas to be dealt with will be a comparatively small number. If hard roads are to he made in those areas and any drainage schemes have to be carried out to make the hard roads worth while, it will obviously be the duty of the Department or the county executive to see that material and equipment are made available for that purpose. At present only one large scheme is to be undertaken, and any supplementary scheme will be effectively dealt with once the war executive committee feels that such work is necessary to improve the productivity of the land.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As this Amendment raises a question of Privilege a Special Entry will be made.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 40, at the end, insert:
either of the following limits, that is to say.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
These words were inserted to make it clear that in respect of the two alternatives (a) and (b) of Subsection (3) of this Clause the lower sum shall be recoverable.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 4, line 20, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 24, at the end, insert:
(9) Any question as to whether the internal drainage board have failed to perform a duty imposed upon them under the last preceding Subsection shall be decided by the Minister, and the Minister may, if he is satisfied that they have so failed, give such directions to the Board as he thinks fit as to the steps to be taken to remedy the failure, and compliance with any such directions shall he enforceable, on the application of the Minister, by mandamus.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Various drainage authorities have represented to my right hon. Friend that it is desirable to make it clear that any enforcement of an Order made under Subsection (8) of this Clause shall be dealt with by the Minister and not by any private individuals. The Amendment accordingly provides that the question whether the Board has failed to comply with an Order shall be decided by the Minister, and that in such case the Minister shall give the necessary directions to remedy the failure and that the enforcement of such direction shall be by mandamus at the instance of the Minister only.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 30, at the end, insert:
(10) In determining for the purposes of this Section whether, and the amount by which, the value for agricultural purposes of any land will be increased by the doing of the work, due regard shall be had to the provisions of die three last preceding Subsections.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause enables the Minister to recover from the owners of the land benefited the cost of the works carried out in connection with the making up of the roads and any drainage works connected therewith, and also decide the manner in which any question in dispute shall be determined by arbitration. The new Subsection which has been inserted requires the arbitrator, in determining whether the value of the land will be increased by the works, to take into account the fact that the owner of the land will be liable to pay for the upkeep of the works after they are completed.

Mr. Price: Does that mean that the whole cost of the work is to be recovered, or is it the increase in the value of the land due to the new works?

Mr. Williams: The sum to be recovered is determined according to one of the two conditions in Clause 2, Subsection 3, paragraphs (a) and (b), and the lesser of the two sums will have to be found by the whole of the property benefited.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 4, line 37, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 41, leave out "and" and insert:

the expression "fenland" shall be construed generally and not as limited to land in that part of England commonly known as 'the Fens'; and.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes it quite clear that the expression "fenland" does not only mean land of that character which is well known to exist in Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and adjoining counties but other land of similar nature in other parts of England such as Sedgemoor and the Essex Marshes.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I feel that we are entitled to know a little more about this proposed alteration, because it is a substantial variation of what we previously understood was intended. We ought to know what category of land is in mind. The Minister suggested just now that it was a limited area. Has a survey been made? Is there any estimate of the land which will be affected, or is it to be left to the war agricultural committees to decide whether any particular land can be fitted into this term? Only this afternoon I was approached by an official of this House who has been served with an order to plough up 300 acres of Norfolk marshlands, and he cannot possibly do it without a road. He has to face a capital outlay of about £30 an acre upon land which hitherto has been used solely for cattle grazing. It is that class of land which will be largely drawn upon under the Minister's new programme for 2,000,000 more acres. There are also river valleys which are in a rather wet condition, the valleys of the Waveney and the Stort, which might very well come in from the point of view of water level, if that is to be the index of what is "fenland." How are we to know what is meant by "fenland" or "land of similar type," because some of the land in various parts of the country is in a very queer state, and if it is to be drawn into cultivation we shall need roads, and roads with substantial structures, culverts and so on.
That leads to the point that when powers were originally vested in war agricultural committees under this Bill it was understood they would be concerned with areas of land well understood by them, just as men in Cambridgeshire have practical experience of how to


handle this class of land; but if we are to draw half the war agricultural committees of the country into the problem of dealing with this class of land, and divorce the highway authorities from the problem, those committees will be faced with the task of providing the plant and the men to build up roads. In the Fen district there are many grass roads, and often the roads are themselves drainage ramparts. What we must understand now is what role the war agricultural committee is going to play. Is it to be left to them to decide whether land is "fenland"?
I think the Minister has done well to accept such an Amendment enlarging the scope of the Bill, but nobody should be under any illusions as to the responsibility that it places upon war agricultural committees. It means that after this war they will remain in substantial charge of road work. They will have to collect the charges. We may find that there has grown up a whole series of private roads held by private owners who are paying the charges levied upon them under these schemes. We have been trying to break down the private road system, but we may find that we have built up a whole new series of private roads. I should prefer to have seen the highway authorities charged with the job, but, at any rate, I should like to know exactly what is the limit of the enlarged term, and which war agricultural committees are likely to be involved in this business, because this is a substantial matter, and I am not satisfied that the Ministry have made up their minds as to how much land will be involved.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Price: I should like some further information on the scope of this Amendment and where the line is to be drawn, because there are fen-lands on a larger or smaller scale scattered all over the country. They are to be found in the famous mud flats of the Severn, where there is very fine grazing land indeed. Of course, very much depends upon the sluices and gates, and the small bays and creeks which drain these areas. There are also districts where reclamation has not yet taken place. Although I should very much like to see improvements going on everywhere in these small areas of fen, still I can see that complications may arise, and we ought to know the precise

definition of "fen-land." I suggest that we might say land at a certain level below the sea. Would it be land liable to flood? We know that very large areas of land are liable to flood according to the quantity of rain that falls in a certain season. Much as I would like to see the scope of the Bill extended, I do not want to be landed in legal difficulties, and I think this House should be quite sure of the exact position. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that it would be better if war agricultural executive committees were not saddled with this work, if it is going to be extensive. We have highway authorities and if this work is to be extended in scope it would be far better that the war agricultural executive committees should be relieved of it.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I gladly respond to the request of my hon. Friends. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) the category of land we have in mind is clearly fenland, but the difficulty of defining fenland is extreme. In Lincoln, fenland is called "fen," in Somerset it is called "moor," in Essex it is called "marsh" and there may be other terms in other parts of the country. But the department have in mind strictly limited areas for action under Clause 2 of this Bill. The areas are well defined. The work will involve little or no responsibility upon war agricultural executive committees and the Minister himself will direct action on advice from engineers, local authorities and others concerned in these special and extremely limited areas. I can therefore assure my hon. Friend that no excessive amount of work or responsibility will be imposed upon war agricultural executive committees. I can also assure him that the areas to he dealt with are strictly limited and although we hope that the work to be undertaken will restore good land to firstclass fertility, we shall not be making private roads all over the country comparable with the toll roads which did exist all over the country and which we are now engaged in getting rid of.

Mr. J. Morgan: May I ask whether any kind of survey has been made and why has this Amendment been accepted by the Minister?

Mr. Williams: Certain areas have been selected which are known to require the


making of hard roads where green roads presently exist. It is because of requests from owners of uncultivated land that Clause 2 has been introduced. I think my hon. Friend will readily appreciate that no Clause such as this would have been introduced if a demand had not been made that action of this kind should be undertaken.

Mr. Price: Am I right in assuming that the interpretation of "fenland" will largely rest with the Minister?

Mr. Williams: Almost absolutely.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 8, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Restriction of remedies conferred by local Acts for recovery of drainage rates.)

Notwithstanding anything in any local Act, or in Subsection (5) of Section thirtyone of the Land Drainage Act, 1930 (which contains a saving for the powers conferred by any local Act in relation to arrears of drainage rates),no distress for arrears of any rate made under the said Act of 1930 shall be levied after the commencement of this Act on the goods or chattels of any person other than a person from whom the arrears may be recovered by virtue of Subsection (1) of the said Section thirtyone, and no proceedings, whether by action or otherwise, for the enforcement of any charge on land for securing payment of arrears of any such rate created by any local Act shall be commenced after the commencement of this Act.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The object of this Clause is to deal with a situation which has arisen in certain parts of the country where it is impossible to let farms owing to the existence of heavy burdens in the form of arrears of drainage rates which would-be tenants are unwilling or unable to shoulder. Drainage rates are recoverable by drainage boards under Section 31 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in the same way as other rates are recoverable under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, that is to say, by distress levied on goods or chattels belonging to the occupier. In certain areas, however, there are local Acts of Parliament dating back to the end of the eighteenth century under which drainage boards are entitled to recover arrears by distress levied on goods belonging to any

person occupying the land, irrespective of whether that person was in occupation at the time the rate was made. The effect of this Clause is to put these drainage boards in the same position as other drainage boards and leave them with the same remedy under Section 31 of the Act of 1930. The effect will be to remove the difficulty that at present exists in obtaining tenants for the land and in getting it used for the production of food during the present emergency and we hope in the future.

8.57 P.m

Mr. J. Morgan: May I ask who in fact will have to pay the former charges due on land of this kind? Are those charges to be in abeyance? Are they to accumulate and he recoverable at some future date, or what is to happen? Will the Minister create a new charge which will have priority over the old charge, or just what is really involved in this proposal? One knows that people have ceased to cultivate land in some cases because of heavy charges like tithe or drainage rates. Is that the class of land that the Minister has in mind? If so, how are these charges that are to be set aside to be met eventually? Are they to be recovered by the Minister on behalf of other people, or are those other people to stand aside and wait until the war is over to recover them?

Mr. T. Williams: It must be clear that this new Clause is introduced only because land is available for cultivation, but no one is willing to become the tenant unless the arrears of drainage rates are dispensed with. The new tenant when he comes in will have no arrears of obligations to face. To that extent he will be a free tenant and able to meet the liablities that accrue during his tenancy. The Drainage Boards who have imposed drainage rates in the past and have failed to collect those rates from the tenants at the time when the rates were imposed, will either have to collect them from those tenants or, I am afraid, will not be able to collect them at all. So far as the new Clause is concerned, it deals with the new tenant only, who starts with a fair field and no favour. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with that principle.

Mr. Morgan: Then the charges are wiped out, so far as he is concerned. Will they still remain to be charged over the


whole drainage district and can then be recovered by a fresh charge? Do they still remain on that particular land or are they wiped right out? If they are wiped right out, it is very satisfactory.

Mr. Williams: It is a matter for the drainage board to determine, but I should imagine that in most cases the arrears will he wiped completely out.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A Special Entry will be made in the Journal.

CLAUSE 9.—(Short title, interpretation and extent.)

Lords Amendments: In page 9, line 21, leave out "and two" and insert "to three."

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is consequential upon the introduction of the new Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1939.

HOME-GROWN OATS (STANDARD PRICE) ORDER, 1940.

9.2 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): I beg to move,
That the Home-grown Oats (Standard Price) Order, 1940, varying the standard price provided for in Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Agricultural Development Act, 5939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 13th August, be approved.
This Order is made under Section 1 (3) of the Agricultural Development Act, 1939, which provides that if the average price of oats in any year is less by 3d. or more per cwt. than the standard price, the Ministers concerned may make an oats subsidy payment to the growers. The standard price at the time of the passing of that Act was 8s. per cwt., but it may be varied by any subsequent Order, after approval by the Treasury. Any such Order requires an affirmative Resolution to be passed by each House of Parliament.
After the outbreak of the war, it was known that there had been increases in

farmers' costs, and the standard price was increased from 8s. per cwt. to 9s., but no subsidy became payable tor the 1939 oat crop, since the average price exceeded the standard price of 9s. per cwt. Since December last year, farmers' costs have increased very materially, largely because of the increases in wages. There have been other increases in their costs, but wages are, perhaps, the main cause. The Government have, therefore, decided to increase the standard price of oats from 9s. per cwt. to 11s. 6d. This really puts a bottom in the market. Farmers Nvill not be faced with a rapid fall, and, unless the price actually falls below 11s. 6d., no subsidy will be paid. This guarantee ought to give ample confidence to farmers to produce the maximum quantity of oats, since they are no longer exposed to the possibility of a slump.
Hon. Members know that the Ministry of Food have fixed a market price of 14s. 6d. for wheat. The guaranteed prices for wheat and for oats will bear exactly the same relationship to each other after the passing of this Order as they did at the outbreak of the war. Therefore the Order is welcomed by farmers throughout the country, and I hope the House will agree to it without demur.

9.5 P.m.

Mr. John Morgan: There are numerous arguments that might be employed in speaking upon this Order, but we have gone over this ground before. The Order is being made in order to increase the general price level of oats. The interesting thing about the Order is that it maintains the structure for arranging the price that was in the original scheme. Why then has the Minister departed, in the case of wheat, from the original scheme? Why is he holding to the scheme in the case of oats? The Joint Under-Secretary says that the farmer will like to know of these prices, but what is rather uncertain is his finding a market for these products at the prices that have been fixed. In the case of oats, there is a certain amount of play as between 11s. 6d. and 14s. per cwt., but it is unlike other cereals. Wheat, which is not subject to the Order, has been related to oats in the past. Just how does it come about that wheat is no longer tied up with this structure and has no guaranteed minimum price position and a declared price without any definite market? There is no


particular reason why people who can buy imported wheat at 37s. or 38s. should buy home-grown wheat at 65s. and no reason, apart from pressure, why they should buy it at 14s. 6d. a cwt.
In regard to oats, there are farmers who want to sell, yet when farmers sell it is very often to each other, and it is therefore in the interests of farmers as a whole that the price of the commodity should not go up too high. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Scottish farmers?"] Scottish farmers are great users of oats, too. The man who sells wants to make a good price and this seems a reasonable price, based upon what is happening in other directions, and in regard to costs. It is interesting to see that the Minister is sticking to the price structure in regard to oats but has broken away from it in regard to wheat. I wonder why. There is no longer any wheat pool or any guarantee, and no guarantee of a sale.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that he continues to discuss wheat, whereas what we have before us is an oats Order.

Mr. Morgan: The interesting thing about this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that the Minister should stick to the price structure in regard to oats and show a tendency to break away from it in regard to wheat.

Mr. T. Williams: My hon. Friend must be under some misapprehension. There has been no change with either of the two cereals referred to. There was a standard price for both prior to the war, and there is a standard price for both to-day.

Mr. Morgan: What is the standard price for wheat?

Mr. Williams: It is 14s. 6d., but the 11s. 6d. have almost exactly the same relationship as the 10s. and 8s. did before the war. So far as I understand the position, there has been no change whatever.

Mr. Morgan: There is no basic price of wheat but only one price; but there are two prices here.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I should just like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he has intro-

duced this Order and to say, speaking as a Scottish Member and one who is actively engaged in the farming industry, that on the whole the farming industry in Scotland welcomes the price of oats fixed by this Motion. So far as Scotland is concerned, wheat and barley are only a tiny percentage of the cereal crop. I might note in passing that the ancient prejudice is now being broken down, and a very small increase of acreage is coming under wheat. I myself intend to put a little more in next year. The farmers in Scotland, and in Great Britain too, have for a long time been labouring under very hard conditions. They welcome this price of £14 10s. per ton, not because it holds out to them any golden hopes, but because it promises just a bare chance of earning a living wage.
A point was made by the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the increase in the cost of production through higher wages and so on. Of course, that is very true. Farmers in Scotland long before the increase in wages were finding it very hard indeed to earn a living and to pay their rent. Then came increased wages, and then the guaranteed price. They accepted it and welcomed it because they thought it was right. We are passing into a new age. This bitter war in which we are engaged is going to lead to new social conditions all round, in the agricultural structure and in the rural enonomy no less than in any other sphere of life, and the farmers, who are as patriotic as—in some cases more patriotic than—any other class of society, would wish to do their part. Therefore they want to pay their men, the toilers on the land, a proper living wage, having regard to the increased cost of living. That is why I have been emboldened to get up to-night to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that, so far as Scotland is concerned—and an Order providing a guaranteed price for home-grown oats affects Scotland far more than it does England and Wales—he has the farmers behind him. They wish to give their agricultural labourers a proper reward for their sweat and toil, provided they have an assurance that those who have sunk a great deal of hard capital and labour in the land shall not themselves be allowed to go down.

9.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): It is so seldom that we are congratulated on any work that we have been doing on behalf of Scottish farmers that I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying how much I appreciate what has just been said by the hon. Member. It is perfectly true that for the Scottish farmer oats are the cereal with which he has to get in his cash and carry on his work. It is true that we have been doing well in the way of producing oats in Scotland, and it is interesting to know that, whilst in 1939 there were 770,000 acres under oats in Scotland, in 1940, as the result of the efforts of the Scottish farmers and the belief that the Government were going at least to try to give them a fair deal—and the hon. Member, I presume, spoke on behalf of the Scottish farmers—

Mr. McKie: I was not speaking on behalf of the Scottish farmers, but merely as an individual Member.

Mr. Westwood: Yes, but I am quite sure the hon. Member could accept the responsibility in the circumstances. We have, as I was going to say, increased the acreage under oats in Scotland from 770,000 acres last year to 897,000 acres in 1940. That means that the Scottish farmer at least has been doing his bit towards the production of food, and I only wish that not only the Scottish but the English people would appreciate the value of oats for human beings as well as for cattle. I should only like to add, with

a certain amount of responsibility for my Department, that I at least value the appreciation which has been expressed of its work in being able to bring an Order before this House which guarantees a price of 11s. 6d. and, through the Ministry of Food's Regulations, fixes the sale price at 14s. 6d.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Home-Grown Oats (Standard Price) Order, 1940, varying the standard price provided for in Sub-section (3) of Section of the Agricultural Development Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 13th August, be approved.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Prescot and District Gas Company and the Liverpool Gas Company, a copy of which was presented to this House on 1st August and published, be approved."—[Mr. Holdsworth.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Holdsworth.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes after Nine o' Clock.